Delete network VPN gateway

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

Goes well beyond the destructive/idempotent/openWorld annotations: discloses refund impact, backend ownership and 2FA enforcement, that acceptance is pending not proof of connectivity, and precise polling/failure semantics (in_progress vs reason_kind failure, next_check_seconds, preserve reason_code). Also explains the no-auto-retry recovery rule for transport uncertainty.

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?

Dense but front-loaded with the highest-value fact (connectivity loss) and the refund caveat before the procedural detail. Length is justified by the polling/recovery semantics, though a couple of clauses could be tightened.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return contract itself (operation/resource, in_progress, reason_code, reason_kind) and covers permissions, ownership, async polling, and idempotent recovery. Nothing an agent needs to invoke and track this destructive operation correctly is missing.

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 67% and the schema already documents gateway_id and idempotencyKey well. The description reinforces idempotency-key preservation on recovery and hints at reading current state (expected_generation), but does not explain expected_generation's concurrency role, so it adds only marginal meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Request teardown of an owned VPN gateway') plus the key consequence ('all devices lose connectivity'), which distinguishes it from detach_network_vpn_gateway. It does not explicitly name the sibling it is not, so it falls just short of the top band.

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?

Gives clear prerequisite workflow ('Read current capabilities and owned resource state first; obtain approval for the exact change') and permission requirements (networking:manage vs networking:read). No explicit alternative is named for the case where a non-destructive detach is wanted, so no exclusion is stated.

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