Delete Stream

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: permanent deletion, immediate cessation of port forwarding, irreversibility, and a dry_run preview path. It omits auth/permission requirements and any side effects on related configuration, which keeps it below 5.

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 verb and resource, then risk, then prerequisite, then return and preview behavior — each clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

For a destructive tool with no annotations, the description covers irreversibility, immediate effect, safe-preview option, and a confirmation step; an output schema already documents the return value. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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 100%, so both id and dry_run are already documented in the schema; the description largely restates the dry_run preview behavior. It adds only the minor hint that the ID comes from the matching list tool. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 TCP/UDP stream by ID), and the concrete effect on NPM. An agent can immediately distinguish this from delete_proxy_host, delete_access_list, and delete_redirection_host by the resource named.

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?

'List streams first to confirm the ID' gives an explicit prerequisite step pointing at the list_streams sibling, which routes the agent correctly. There is no explicit when-not or alternative-selection guidance, but the context for use is clear.

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