Delete Mac_address

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds significant context: it labels the operation as 'DESTRUCTIVE and IRREVERSIBLE', explains cascade deletes for various object types, and notes the HTTP 204 response. No contradiction with 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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and immediately followed by essential warnings. Every sentence adds value (destructive warning, cascade explanation, confirmation requirement, return type). It is concise for the complexity of the behavior it conveys.

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 has one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, behavioral details, and return type. It explains cascade deletes even for other object types, providing comprehensive context for a safe invocation.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the parameter 'id' is already described in the schema as 'Numeric id of the mac_address to delete.' The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides.

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 the resource 'mac_address' with the method 'by numeric id'. Among many sibling delete tools, this one is specifically for mac_address, making it distinct.

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 explicit caution about destructiveness, cascade deletes, and requires user confirmation. However, it does not explicitly compare with other delete tools or state when not to use it, beyond the general caution.

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