delete_nat_onetoone_mapping

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds 'WARNING: This is irreversible' which reinforces and adds context about the permanence of the deletion. It does not mention the safety gates (confirm, dry_run) or the need to apply changes, but those are covered by the schema. The added context earns a 4.

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 a single sentence followed by a warning. It is extremely concise, front-loaded with the action, and every word is essential. No filler or repetition. The warning is placed appropriately after the main function.

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 output schema exists and annotations provide the destructive flag, the description is largely sufficient. It correctly identifies the operation and irreversibility. However, it does not mention that the mapping ID comes from a search, nor does it clarify whether deletion requires a subsequent apply. The schema's apply_immediately parameter defaults to true, which mitigates this, but a brief note about the ID source or workflow would improve completeness. Overall, complex enough that a 4 is reasonable.

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 has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all parameters, including mapping_id, confirm, dry_run, and apply_immediately. The description only adds 'by ID' which is redundant with the schema. Since the schema already provides full semantics, the description adds minimal value, so a baseline score of 3 is warranted.

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 '1:1 NAT mapping' and identifies the key 'by ID'. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like search, create, and update, and the warning about irreversibility adds to clarity.

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 usage: when you want to delete a specific mapping identified by its ID. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the 'by ID' hints at needing the ID from search_nat_onetoone_mappings. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, so a 4 is appropriate.

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