deleteFirewallAcl

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

The destructiveHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description confirms that the object destroyed is a firewall ACL rule. It adds no further behavioral detail such as irreversibility, immediate enforcement, or whether siteId matters, but it does not contradict the annotation.

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?

A single, front-loaded, unambiguous sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 deletion with a destructiveHint annotation and no output schema, the core invocation is adequately covered. The unexplained optional siteId and the absence of any note about permanence or side effects are minor gaps, so it falls just short of fully complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It clarifies that the required aclId is the firewall ACL rule's ID. However, it does not explain the optional siteId parameter at all, leaving a partial gap in parameter understanding.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete'), a clear resource ('firewall ACL rule'), and the selection criterion 'by its ID'. This leaves no doubt about the operation and differentiates it from sibling tools like listFirewallAcls and createFirewallAcl.

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 tool name and description clearly frame it as the deletion operation for firewall ACL rules, so the intended context is obvious. It does not explicitly mention how to obtain the ID (e.g., via listFirewallAcls) or state exclusions, but no competing deletion tool exists for this specific resource.

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