delete_firewall_rule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the confirmation requirement ('Must be true to execute'), the warning on first call, and the precedence rule ('node... Ignored if vmid is provided'). It does not mention reversibility or error handling, but the destructive nature is implied by 'delete' and the confirm step.

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 well-structured and efficient. It opens with the core purpose, then a usage hint, then a clear Args list. No redundant sentences; every line adds value. The code-block formatting for args enhances readability.

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?

Despite no annotations, the description covers all key aspects: how to identify a rule (position), scope selection (vmid, node, cluster), confirmation workflow, and prerequisite listing. The output schema exists, so return details are not needed. This is comprehensive for a delete operation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. The 'Args' section explicitly describes each parameter: pos (position from list), vmid (optional VM scope), node (optional node scope, ignored if vmid), and confirm (must be true to execute). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's titles and defaults.

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 what the tool does: 'Delete a firewall rule by its position number.' It specifies the method (position number) and directly differentiates from sibling tools like list_firewall_rules and add_firewall_rule by focusing on deletion and referencing the list command for positions.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use list_firewall_rules first to see rule positions.' It also explains scope selection (vmid, node, or cluster default) and the confirm behavior (first call shows a warning). It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the prerequisites and scope logic are clear.

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