delete_ipsec_phase2

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

Annotations already mark the operation as destructive, and the description adds the key nuance that deletion is irreversible, which is not captured by the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint flags. It does not detail side effects on dependent objects, but the safety value is meaningful.

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 concise sentences front-load the action and resource, followed by a clear safety warning. No filler or redundancy.

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 detailed schema covering all parameters and annotations signaling destructiveness, the description is appropriately sized. The irreversible warning and ID requirement are the essential contextual additions. It could mention the need to set confirm=True, but that is adequately documented in the schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (phase2_id, confirm, dry_run, apply_immediately) already having explanatory descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond 'by ID', so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action (Delete), the specific resource (IPsec Phase 2 / Child SA / tunnel), and the required identifier (by ID). This distinguishes it from related tools like update_ipsec_phase2 or search_ipsec_phase2s.

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 use for removing an existing Phase 2 entry, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. The warning about irreversibility hints at caution but not at alternative workflows.

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