delete_firewall

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 mentions a critical constraint ('must not be in use'), which is valuable, but fails to address other important aspects such as permissions required, whether the deletion is permanent or reversible, error handling, or what happens to associated resources. This leaves significant gaps for a destructive operation.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words—and front-loads the core action ('Delete a firewall') followed by a critical constraint. Every part earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on permissions, side effects, return values, error conditions, and how to verify if a firewall is 'in use'. Given the complexity and risk of deletion operations, this leaves the agent with insufficient guidance.

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 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about the 'id' parameter beyond what the schema implies (it's a number). However, with only one parameter and a straightforward operation, the baseline is 3 as the minimal context is somewhat adequate, though no additional semantic value is added.

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 ('a firewall'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_network' or 'delete_server' beyond the resource type, which prevents 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 an implied usage guideline with 'must not be in use', suggesting a prerequisite condition. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'update_firewall' for modifications) or mention any other contextual constraints.

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