delete_dhcp_custom_option

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive (destructiveHint: true), and the description adds the crucial behavioral context that the deletion is irreversible, emphasizing the permanence of the action beyond the generic destructive flag. This adds useful warning information without contradicting the annotations.

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 extremely concise—one sentence with a clear action and an important warning. Every word earns its place, and the core purpose is front-loaded. No extraneous content or repetition of schema details.

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?

The tool is simple with well-documented schema, annotations, and output schema. The description adds the critical 'irreversible' warning, and the parameter docs cover safety gates. It does not mention every step (e.g., searching for the ID first), but the overall context is adequate for a destructive single-entity deletion, and the existing structure covers most needs.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all four parameters, including the safety gate (confirm) and dry_run option. The description itself adds no parameter-specific information beyond saying 'by ID', so it rests on the schema's strong coverage, which is the baseline for this dimension.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') with a specific resource ('DHCP custom option') and identifies the key identifier ('by ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_dhcp_custom_option, update_dhcp_custom_option, and search_dhcp_custom_options.

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 implies the tool is for deleting a custom option, and the 'by ID' phrasing suggests the ID must come from a search, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like retrieving the ID via search_dhcp_custom_options or the need for confirmation.

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