delete_acl_rule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'delete', which is already in the tool name. It does not explain whether deletion is immediate, whether it requires confirmation, what happens if the rule_id does not exist, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutating 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 short sentence, which is concise in length, but it is under-specified—it merely repeats the tool name. It does not earn its place by adding any useful information, making it an under-specification rather than a model of conciseness.

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?

While an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the description is still incomplete for a delete operation. It lacks context about what an ACL rule is, how to find the rule_id, and what the consequences of deletion are. The surrounding sibling tools (list_acl_rules, add_acl_rule, toggle_acl_rule) are not referenced, leaving the description insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 schema has one parameter, rule_id, and the description does not mention it at all. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description was expected to compensate by explaining what rule_id refers to or how to obtain valid values. It provides no such meaning, leaving the parameter semantics entirely to the schema's property name.

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 '删除 ACL 规则' directly restates the tool name 'delete_acl_rule' in Chinese, making it a tautology. It states the action (delete) and resource (ACL rule), but adds no new information beyond the name itself.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_acl_rule or toggle_acl_rule. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as how to obtain a rule_id via list_acl_rules, nor any conditions under which deletion is appropriate.

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