delete-iplist

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes an IP List, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., on associated rules), or provides confirmation. This leaves significant gaps for a destructive operation.

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 a single, direct sentence with zero waste: 'Delete an IP List from the PCE'. It front-loads the key action and resource efficiently, making it easy to parse without unnecessary details. Every word earns its place in conveying the core purpose.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., irreversibility, permissions), output expectations, or error handling. For a delete operation with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description fails to provide sufficient context for safe and effective use.

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%, with clear descriptions for 'href' and 'name' as alternatives for identifying the IP List. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between href and name or usage recommendations. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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') and the resource ('an IP List from the PCE'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-iplists' (read) and 'update-iplist' (modify), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other delete operations like 'delete-label' or 'delete-workload', which target different 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the IP List's href or name), when not to use it (e.g., if the IP List is in use), or compare with siblings like 'update-iplist' for modifications instead of deletion. The description only states what it does, not when to apply it.

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