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 burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The description only states the action, not the consequences (e.g., deletion is irreversible, affects specific zone, requires both rule_id and zone identifier). It does not mention whether the tool is mutating, but that is inferred from the verb. Insufficient disclosure of side effects or prerequisites beyond the parameter requirement.

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 the core purpose in the first sentence and a crucial usage constraint in the second. It is concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. Every sentence adds value, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, all documented in schema) and the presence of an output schema (likely indicating deletion success), the description is adequate. However, it lacks context on error handling (e.g., what happens if the rule doesn't exist) and prerequisites (e.g., the rule must belong to the specified zone). The instruction on zone disambiguation is a plus, but the deletion's irreversible nature is not highlighted. Overall, minimal but sufficient for a straightforward 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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented structurally. The description adds the constraint of providing exactly one of zone_id or zone_name, which is not evident from the schema alone. This is valuable semantic context that helps the agent avoid incorrect invocations. The description does not add syntax details beyond the schema, but the mutual exclusivity rule compensates, earning a near-high score.

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 tool deletes a WAF custom rule, using a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('WAF custom rule'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_waf_rule_tool' and 'create_waf_rule_tool' by indicating the deletion action. The name also aligns with the description, making intent 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 description explicitly says to provide either zone_id or zone_name, not both, giving clear usage constraints. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_waf_rules_tool for finding rule_id or update_waf_rule_tool for modifying instead of deleting, but the sibling context implies deletion is separate. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but is adequate.

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