delete_network

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 behavioral disclosure. It mentions that deletion requires a reference from 'get_networks,' hinting at a prerequisite, but fails to disclose critical traits like whether this is destructive (implied by 'Delete' but not explicit), permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 concise sentences with zero waste, front-loading the core action and following with a practical instruction. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 complexity of a destructive delete operation, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., irreversibility, error handling), expected outcomes, or integration with other tools beyond the initial reference step. This is insufficient for safe and effective tool use.

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%, with the parameter 'ref' fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by noting the reference should come from 'get_networks,' but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema already states. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Delete') and resource ('a network from Infoblox IPAM'), making the purpose evident. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'delete_dns_record' or 'delete_zone', but the specificity of 'network' provides some differentiation. However, it lacks the precise sibling distinction needed for a 5.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool by stating 'Get the reference from get_networks first,' which implies a prerequisite and workflow. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like 'delete_dns_record' for other resources, so it falls short of a 5.

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