delete_gateway

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's 'irreversible' warning adds a useful nuance beyond the structured metadata. However, it does not disclose other important behavioral aspects such as the requirement to set confirm=True or the impact on dependent routing rules, though those are indirectly captured in the schema.

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 at one sentence, clearly stating the action and the critical warning. No filler or repetition; every word contributes to the meaning.

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 rich annotations (destructiveHint), full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description does not need to re-explain details. It adequately covers the high-level purpose and the key caveat of irreversibility. However, it omits explicit mention of the confirm and dry_run safety gates, which are available in the schema but would be valuable for an agent to consider before invocation.

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 descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, so the schema already explains each parameter (confirm, dry_run, gateway_id, apply_immediately). The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond pointing to 'by ID', which is redundant with the schema.

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 states the specific action ('Delete a routing gateway by ID') with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like delete_gateway_group by specifying 'routing gateway' and the target is a single gateway, not a group.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., looking up the gateway_id via search_gateways), or conditions that should be checked before deletion. The only hint is the irreversibility warning, which implies caution but does not explain how to proceed safely.

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