delete_firewall_state

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

It adds the warning that deletion is irreversible and immediately drops the associated connection, going beyond the annotations' destructiveHint. This provides actionable impact awareness for the agent.

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 sentences, front-loading the action and outcome with no redundant content. The warning is prominently placed and 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?

With annotations, schema, and output schema present, the description covers the key semantic aspects: what is deleted, the immediate connection drop, and irreversibility. It doesn't need to explain return values or the confirm/dry_run mechanics, which the schema already handles.

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 already provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (id, confirm, dry_run), including the confirm safety gate. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the 100% schema coverage supports the baseline of 3.

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 the resource ('firewall state') and clarifies that a state is an active connection. This precisely distinguishes it from other delete tools operating on different firewall components.

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 clearly implies the tool is for removing a specific firewall state by ID, which is the only tool for this purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it misses the full mark.

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