delete_waf_rule_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only a terse "Deletion confirmation" return and stays silent on whether the deletion is permanent/irreversible, what permissions or authorization are needed, and whether the rule stops enforcing traffic immediately. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then the exclusivity constraint, then Args and Returns blocks. Each section is short and earns its place; the Args/Returns scaffolding is slightly formulaic but not wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so explaining return values is not required, yet the description still notes "Deletion confirmation" (harmless). The main deficiency is behavioral: for a destructive, annotation-free tool the description should at minimum signal permanence or required permissions. Parameter and identity handling are otherwise adequately covered.

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 compensate, and it largely does: rule_id and zone_id are described as 32-character hex strings and zone_name as a domain like example.com, plus the mutual-exclusivity rule between zone_id and zone_name. It omits whether zone_id/zone_name are optional when a rule_id uniquely resolves, but the formats are genuinely additive.

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+resource ("Delete a WAF custom rule") that clearly distinguishes it from the delete_page_rule_tool/delete_dns_record_tool siblings and from its WAF counterparts create_waf_rule_tool/update_waf_rule_tool/list_waf_rules_tool. It does not name an alternative sibling explicitly, but the WAF-rule scope is unambiguous.

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 line "Provide either zone_id or zone_name, not both" is a genuine invocation constraint the agent needs. However, there is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus list_waf_rules_tool or update_waf_rule_tool, nor any preconditions. Usage is implied by the destroy verb rather than explained.

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