delete_firewall_rule

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses the write permission requirement but does not mention that deletion is irreversible, any potential side effects (e.g., if rule is referenced elsewhere), or what the response indicates. Adequate but could be more thorough.

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?

Three short sentences: purpose, requirement, and argument explanation. No fluff, every sentence adds value. Perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple delete-by-ID tool, the description covers operation, argument, and prerequisite. Lacks mention of irreversibility or error conditions, but given the simplicity, it is largely complete. Reference to sibling tool firewall_filter_rules provides necessary context.

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 sole parameter rule_id has no schema description (0% coverage). The description compensates by specifying format ('*5'), that it's the '.id' value, and that it must be retrieved from firewall_filter_rules. This adds meaningful context 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?

The description clearly states the action: delete a single firewall filter rule by ID. It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_firewall_rule_enabled by specifying 'delete' and references the source of the ID (firewall_filter_rules).

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 tells when to use the tool (when deleting a firewall rule) and provides a crucial prerequisite: obtain the rule ID from firewall_filter_rules first. It also mentions the required environment variable MIKROCLAW_ALLOW_WRITE=true, guiding the agent on correct usage.

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