delete_vlan

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 does disclose the error behavior for missing VLANs via allow_missing and the interface constraint, but it does not mention potential failure modes (e.g., VLAN in use) or permissions. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 compact, front-loaded with the action, and lists parameters in a clear Args block with no superfluous text. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and usage.

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 and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description covers the essential behavior and parameter semantics. It does not address edge cases like non-existent interfaces, but these are less critical for a straightforward delete operation. The tool appears complete for its scope.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It does so for all three: interface includes an example and a constraint, vlan_id is straightforwardly defined, and allow_missing explains its effect on error behavior. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though vlan_id's explanation is minimal.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Delete a VLAN from an ethernet interface.' This immediately distinguishes it from siblings like get_vlans (read) and create_vlan (add) based on the action. The resource is specific and the operation 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?

The description implies usage through the action verb and parameter constraints (e.g., interface cannot be 'all'), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. Since the sibling names make the purpose obvious, it meets the 'implied usage' bar but not a higher one.

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