delete_allowed_ips

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states that an IP range is deleted, but does not disclose whether the deletion is permanent, what side effects occur, what permissions are needed, or what the response contains. This is insufficient 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 short and free of filler, which is structurally clean. However, it is under-specified for a 5-parameter destructive tool, so the brevity is not fully appropriate for the task complexity.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no parameter guidance, the one-sentence description is not sufficient for an agent to reliably construct a correct call. The presence of an output schema helps with returned values, but input semantics and side-effect behavior remain largely unexplained.

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%, and the tool description does not explain any of the five parameters. It fails to clarify the relationship between from_ip_range and to_ip_range, the purpose of optional ip_id, the meaning of zoid, or why role_id is required. The description adds essentially no meaning beyond the parameter titles in the schema.

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 action ('Delete') and a resource ('allowed IP range') scoped to an organization. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_allowed_ips and get_allowed_ips without ambiguity.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of checking existing allowed IP ranges before deleting. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Delete'; there are no explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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