Delete mail forwarder

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description still adds real value beyond them by explaining the client-side confirmation prompt and the 'declined'/'cancelled' outcome, which an agent cannot infer from structured fields. It stops short of saying what happens when the forwarder does not exist or what error shape to expect, so a 3 rather than a 4.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no padding. The parenthetical '(or cancelled)' introduces slight ambiguity about which status string to expect, which is the only small friction.

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?

With an output schema present and full schema coverage, the description only needs to carry behavior, and it does explain the confirm/decline path and resulting status. The missing piece is failure behavior for a non-existent or unowned forwarder, which is minor for a two-parameter delete.

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 100% and both parameters (vserver, address) are documented in the schema, including a pointer to list_webhostings. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Delete an e-mail forwarder'), which cleanly separates it from the create_mail_forwarder, update_mail_forwarder and list_mail_forwarders siblings by operation type. It never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation comes from the verb rather than an explicit routing statement.

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?

Usage is implied by the destructive verb, and the confirmation flow gives useful context for the interaction. However, it does not say how to locate the forwarder to delete (e.g. via list_mail_forwarders), nor when to prefer update_mail_forwarder over deletion.

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