delete_nat_outbound_mapping

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds that deletion is irreversible, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the annotation. It does not describe the full deletion workflow (e.g., role of confirm/dry_run), but those details are present in the schema, and the warning is sufficient for a destructive operation.

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 that immediately states the action and includes an important warning. It contains no wasted words and does not redundantly repeat schema or annotation information.

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 schema with safety gates (confirm, dry_run, apply_immediately) and the existence of an output schema, the description is adequate for a delete operation. The potential gap—explaining the need to apply changes if apply_immediately is false—is covered by the schema parameter description, so the description remains complete enough.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters, including the safety gate (confirm) and dry_run. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already states, so it meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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 ('outbound NAT mapping') with a clear identification method ('by ID'), distinguishing it from sibling search/create/update tools. The warning also clarifies the destructive scope, leaving no ambiguity about the operation.

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 by stating 'Delete an outbound NAT mapping by ID,' but it does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions. The sibling tool names (e.g., update_nat_outbound_mapping) provide indirect context, but no explicit guidance is given.

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