Delete Interface_template

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

The description expands on the annotations (destructiveHint=true) by detailing the cascading deletion behavior of NetBox, giving concrete examples of what can be removed along with the interface template. It also notes the HTTP 204 response on success. This adds meaningful behavioral insight beyond the annotation flags.

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 (approx. 100 words) but well-structured: a one-line purpose, followed by a clear warning section. Every sentence contributes relevant information, though the warning could be slightly condensed. It is front-loaded with the essential action.

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 simple input schema (one required integer parameter), no output schema, and annotations marking destructiveness, the description adequately covers the key points: what the tool does, how to use it (with confirmation), what to expect (cascading deletes, 204 response). It is complete enough for an agent to use safely.

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 covers 100% of parameters (only 'id'), and its description already states 'Numeric id of the interface_template to delete.' The tool description does not add additional context about the parameter, so it meets the baseline expectation but does not exceed it.

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') and the resource ('interface_template from NetBox'), using a specific verb and noun. It includes the identifier method ('by numeric id'), and the name and title match the purpose. Among siblings, many deletion tools exist, but the description unambiguously identifies this as the tool for interface templates.

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 emphasizes that the operation is destructive and irreversible, and includes explicit instructions to confirm the exact object and its cascading effects with the user before calling. While it does not explicitly list when to use alternatives (e.g., updating instead of deleting), the strong warning and mention of cascading deletes provide practical guidance for safe usage.

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