mmar_delete_port_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and parameter, without mentioning potential side effects (e.g., irreversibility, cascading deletes) or prerequisites (e.g., active session). This is a gap for a destructive operation.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and target, with no unnecessary words. It is concise and appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.

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 parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It names the action and the parameter, which is sufficient for a basic delete operation. However, it omits any mention of authentication or side effects, which are relevant given the sibling tools, but the simplicity balances this to a 4.

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 input schema covers 100% of the parameter, with a clear description for 'uuid'. The tool description adds no further parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides the necessary meaning.

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 action ('Delete') and the specific resource ('PortInstance') with a precise identifier (UUID). It distinguishes it from sibling delete tools by specifying the entity type, eliminating ambiguity.

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 that this tool should be used when deleting a port instance, and it is clearly distinct from other delete tools based on entity type. However, it does not explicitly provide alternative tools or exclusions, so it does not fully meet the 5-level benchmark.

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