Sigma Remove Allowed Ips

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the confirm=True requirement, which is essential behavior not captured by annotations. It also notes the v3alpha API version. This adds meaningful context beyond the structured data.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The main action and destructive warning are front-loaded, followed by the confirm requirement and the entry_ids parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so the return format is already defined. The description covers the essential aspects: what is deleted, how to confirm, and what the parameter is. It doesn't mention permissions or other preconditions, but for a simple deletion with a confirmation flag, this is adequate. A 4 reflects the completeness given the tool's simplicity and existing output schema.

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%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does: 'entry_ids: List of IP allowlist entry ID strings to delete' directly clarifies the required array. It also explains confirm's purpose by stating 'Requires confirm=True'. This fully compensates for the lack of schema documentation.

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 verb 'Delete' and the resource 'IP allowlist entries by ID from the organization', with the scope (organization) and operation (v3alpha). It is distinct from sibling tools sigma_list_allowed_ips and sigma_add_allowed_ips, so an agent can unambiguously identify this as the removal operation.

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 explicitly requires confirm=True, which is a critical usage condition. It does not name alternatives, but the sibling names (list/add) make the selection obvious. The context of deletion is clear, though it could have explicitly stated 'use this only when you need to remove entries, not to list or add them.'

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