Delete an IPS signature object by its UUID to remove unwanted or outdated intrusion prevention signatures from Security Director Cloud.
Delete an IPS signature object by UUID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uuid | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only indicates the destructive nature via 'delete' but fails to disclose whether the operation is irreversible, cascading, or requires confirmation. Return value or error conditions are not mentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action, but its brevity comes at the cost of missing helpful information. Still, it earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and parameter. However, it lacks behavioral details like side effects, prerequisites, or return values, which would be expected for a delete operation with no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds minimal meaning by specifying 'by UUID', implying that the uuid parameter is the identifier. However, with 0% schema description coverage, it does not explain UUID format or source, which is only a slight improvement over the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'delete', the resource 'IPS signature object', and the identifier 'UUID', making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, get, update, and list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as prerequisites (e.g., the object must exist) or context (e.g., obtaining the UUID via list/get). The description is silent on when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.