remove_nat_rule

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'permanently' and the fact that the removed rule is returned, which is extra context beyond the annotations. It does not mention error handling (e.g., behavior if rule_id not found), but the annotations already set the expectation of destruction.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, scope, permanence, and return value. There is no wasted text, and the key information is immediately accessible.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain the return structure. The description covers the action, permanence, and what is returned. Combined with annotations that declare destructive and idempotent behavior, the agent has all necessary information to call the tool correctly.

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 schema has a single parameter 'rule_id' with 0% description coverage. The description does not explicitly explain what rule_id is, but the tool name and purpose make it obvious that it identifies the rule to delete. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, but the parameter is trivial enough that this is acceptable.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('NAT rule'), and adds the permanence qualifier ('permanently') and the return value ('Returns the rule that was removed'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like add_nat_rule or set_nat_rule_enabled, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 the use case (deleting a NAT rule) but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives, such as using set_nat_rule_enabled to disable a rule instead of deleting it. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the selection logic to inference.

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