Delete Vm_interface

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description adds valuable behavioral details: cascade deletion examples, irreversibility, and the HTTP 204 No Content success response. This fully discloses the destructive nature beyond what annotations alone provide.

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, using a few sentences to state purpose, warnings, and return value. It is front-loaded with the core action, followed by important caveats, and ends with the success response. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how to use it (with user confirmation), behavioral warnings (cascade, irreversibility), and the expected return. It is fully complete for the complexity level.

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 100% coverage with a single 'id' parameter already described as 'Numeric id of the vm_interface to delete.' The description reiterates 'by numeric id' but does not add additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 'Delete a vm_interface from NetBox by numeric id,' providing a specific verb and resource. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like netbox_get_vm_interface, netbox_create_vm_interface, and netbox_update_vm_interface by focusing on deletion.

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 instructs to 'Confirm the exact object — and what will cascade with it — with the user before calling,' providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly exclude situations or suggest alternative tools when deletion might not be appropriate.

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