unifi_delete_acl_rule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Delete' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't specify if this action is reversible, requires admin permissions, has side effects (e.g., on network traffic), or provides confirmation. For a destructive tool, this lack of detail is a significant gap in transparency.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Delete an ACL rule'), making it immediately clear. This is an example of optimal conciseness for a simple tool.

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?

For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, irreversibility, or error conditions, nor does it hint at the response format. Given the tool's complexity (deletion) and lack of structured data, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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 has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter names and descriptions ('Site ID', 'ACL rule ID'). The description doesn't add any semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as how to obtain these IDs or their format. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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') and resource ('an ACL rule'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'unifi_create_acl_rule' and 'unifi_update_acl_rule' by specifying deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what an ACL rule is or its scope (e.g., network security), which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing ACL rule ID), when not to use it (e.g., if the rule is in use), or refer to sibling tools like 'unifi_get_acl_rule' for verification. This leaves the agent without context for proper tool selection.

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