Delete Module

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations. While annotations set destructiveHint=true, the description elaborates with concrete examples of cascading deletes (e.g., deleting a device removes interfaces, power ports, etc.) and explicitly states there is no undo. It also clarifies the return value (HTTP 204 No Content). This is very transparent.

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 concise and well-structured. It opens with the purpose, immediately follows with critical warnings in a clear format (caps, bullet-like), and ends with return information. Every sentence is necessary and contributes to understanding.

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 delete tool with complex cascading effects, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how to identify the object, destructive nature, cascade examples, required user confirmation, and return format. No output schema exists, but the return is described adequately.

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 already describes the parameter 'id' with full coverage (100%). The description only restates 'by numeric id' without adding further meaning, such as how to find the ID or any constraints. Given high schema coverage, the description adds minimal value; a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 module from NetBox by numeric id.' It specifies the resource (module) and the method (by numeric id). This is a specific verb-resource pair that is easily distinguishable from sibling tools, even though it does not explicitly differentiate from other delete tools.

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 strong usage context: it warns about destructive and irreversible nature, cascading deletes, and need for user confirmation. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus other delete tools or provide when-not-to-use scenarios. Siblings include many other delete functions, and no mention of alternatives is present.

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