Delete address object (safe)

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint: true, idempotentHint: true), the description discloses that the tool reads the current object before deletion and defaults to dry_run=true. This adds critical safety context that annotations do not cover. No contradictions with annotations.

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 that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and key safety behavior. Front-loaded with the verb 'Safely delete' and the resource, with zero wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain return values (e.g., what the plan output looks like on dry_run or success/failure on real delete). It covers the safety pattern but omits output behavior and error conditions. For a delete tool with good annotations and schema, this is adequate but not complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds that dry_run defaults to true and that confirm is required when dry_run=false, but this is already stated in the schema. The description adds minimal new semantic value beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the verb 'delete' and the resource 'firewall address object'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like fortigate_delete_address_group by focusing on address objects. The mention of 'safely' and the default dry_run behavior adds specificity.

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?

The description implies a safe deletion workflow: read first, dry_run by default. It gives clear context for when to use this tool—to delete an address object safely. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like update or list tools. Still, the guidance is effective for a delete tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.