delete_ipsec_phase2_encryption

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the specific warning 'WARNING: This is irreversible,' which goes beyond the annotation by disclosing permanence. No contradiction with 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 one sentence plus a warning, front-loaded with the action and target. Every word earns its place with no fluff 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?

Given the rich input schema (confirm/dry_run/apply_immediately) and the destructiveHint annotation, the short description is mostly sufficient. It is slightly incomplete in that it does not mention the confirm gate or relationship to apply_ipsec_changes, but these are already covered by annotations, schema, and output 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?

The input schema fully documents all four parameters with descriptions, including the confirm safety gate and dry_run behavior, so the description does not need to add parameter detail. The phrase 'by ID' reinforces encryption_id but adds no meaning beyond the schema's description. Baseline 3 applies due to 100% schema coverage.

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') and resource ('IPsec Phase 2 encryption entry') with a clear mechanism ('by ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_ipsec_phase2_encryptions or update_ipsec_phase2_encryption. It exactly states the action and target.

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 usage once an encryption_id is available and warns that deletion is irreversible, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over update_ipsec_phase2_encryption or how to obtain the ID. Usage context is clear but only implied, not explicit.

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