Delete Virtual_circuit

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

Beyond the `destructiveHint` annotation, the description elaborates on the cascading deletion behavior in NetBox with specific examples (e.g., device removes interfaces, power ports, IPs) and confirms the HTTP 204 response. This adds significant value for safe usage.

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 yet comprehensive: it states the purpose, highlights critical warnings, explains behavior, and describes the response—all in a few well-structured sentences. No redundant information is present.

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 simple one-parameter delete tool with `destructiveHint` and no output schema, the description fully covers the purpose, usage warnings, cascade behavior, response format, and prerequisite confirmation step. It is complete and sufficient.

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 the single parameter (`id`) with a description, achieving 100% coverage. The description restates the parameter's purpose ('by numeric id') but adds no additional semantic value. According to guidelines, baseline is 3 for high schema coverage.

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'), the target resource ('virtual_circuit'), and the method ('by numeric id'). This uniquely identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling delete tools targeting other resources.

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 explicitly warns that the operation is destructive and irreversible, and instructs the agent to confirm with the user before calling. It provides clear guidance on when to use (only after confirmation) but does not specify alternatives or when not to use, which is acceptable given the tool's simplicity and the context of sibling tools.

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