router_del_port_forwarding

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one genuinely useful trait — the existence of a Network Guard safety check that 'force' bypasses — but never states that deletion is irreversible, whether 'confirm' must be true for the delete to proceed, or what happens when the guard blocks the call.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in one clear sentence and the Args list is compact. The Args entries echo schema titles somewhat, but that repetition earns its place given 0% schema description coverage.

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 return values need not be described. But for a destructive, unannotated tool, the description omits irreversibility and recovery guidance, and never says how to obtain a valid rule_stack — meaningful gaps for this 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 0%, so the description must compensate and does so partially: all three params get a gloss and rule_stack gets a concrete format example ('2,1,1,1,0,0'). However, the interaction between confirm (default false) and the actual deletion is not explained, leaving the most safety-critical semantic ambiguous.

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: deletes an existing NAT virtual server port forwarding rule, scoped by stack ID. The action is unambiguous and naturally distinct from router_add_port_forwarding and router_get_port_forwarding, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus the get/add siblings, and no prerequisites such as where the rule_stack value should come from (presumably router_get_port_forwarding). The only guidance is the 'force' flag description, which is behavioral rather than selection-oriented.

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