delete_ipsec_phase1

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

Annotations already define destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds irreversibility and automatic removal of associated Phase 2 entries. This provides critical side-effect disclosure beyond the structured hints.

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?

Two compact sentences: first states the core action, second delivers the essential warning. No filler or redundancy, and front-loaded with the purpose.

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 a destructive tool, the description covers the crucial operational context (irreversibility and cascade deletion) while schema annotations and descriptions handle parameters and output. Nothing essential is missing.

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 covers all parameters (100%) with detailed descriptions including confirm, dry_run, apply_immediately, and phase1_id source. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond 'by ID', so baseline 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?

States specific action ('Delete') and resource ('IPsec Phase 1 (IKE) entry by ID'), and is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like delete_ipsec_phase2. The verb+resource pairing is unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned. The cascade warning implies not to use it when retaining Phase 2 entries is desired, but this is indirect rather than a direct usage guideline.

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