delete_auth_server

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, and the description adds 'irreversible,' which clarifies the permanence beyond the annotation. It doesn't mention confirm/dry_run safety gates, but those are documented in the schema, so the description adds useful context without contradiction.

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 a single sentence plus a concise warning. It is front-loaded with the action, and every word serves a purpose, making it extremely 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?

For a simple delete tool with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description is essentially complete. It lacks an explicit mention of confirm=true or dry_run=true, but those are in the schema, so the description does not need to repeat them.

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% with clear descriptions for auth_server_id, confirm, and dry_run. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the 'by ID' reference, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action: 'Delete a pfSense authentication server by ID.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_auth_server, update_auth_server, and search_auth_servers, providing a specific verb, resource, and method.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'delete' and the ID parameter, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as update_auth_server for modifications. The description does not state how to obtain the auth_server_id or when not to use this tool.

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