delete_nat_port_forward

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description adds a useful warning that the operation is irreversible. It does not describe the confirm gate or dry_run behavior, but those are covered by the schema, so the added context is meaningful without being redundant.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the verb, resource, and key identifier. There is no filler or waste.

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 an output schema present and all parameters fully described in the schema, the description only needs to convey the operation's essence and critical caveat. The irreversibility warning covers the main risk, making this sufficient for a simple destructive tool.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter with descriptions. The description only mentions 'by ID' and does not add additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline of 3.

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?

'Delete a NAT port forwarding rule by ID' names both the action and the target resource, with the key parameter explicitly included. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like update_nat_port_forward and search_nat_port_forwards.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The only extra context is the irreversibility warning, which does not address selection among sibling tools such as update or search operations.

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