delete_forward

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and 'Preview' correctly reinforces that this does not mutate state. However, the description adds nothing about what the preview returns, whether a confirmation/apply step follows, or any permission requirements, so it goes only modestly beyond the 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriate. It is arguably too terse for the workflow it implies, but nothing in the sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but with 0% parameter coverage and no usage guidance, the definition is too thin for a tool whose name misleadingly suggests immediate destruction. The critical preview-vs-apply workflow is left unstated.

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 description coverage is 0% for both required parameters, and the description never mentions 'domain' or 'host'. In particular, its silence on the domain parameter's dual string/integer type leaves the agent with no guidance beyond the raw 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('preview deletion of a specific HTTP forward') and usefully disambiguates the misleading name, which says 'delete' but the operation is a preview. It does not differentiate from any sibling (e.g. apply_plan), but the purpose itself is 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of the follow-up step needed to actually perform the deletion, and no comparison to siblings such as apply_plan or list_forwards. The agent must infer the workflow entirely.

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