delete_acl_ruleRemove an ACL rule from an iKuai router by rule ID to revoke access permissions and keep network security policies accurate.
删除 ACL 规则
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rule_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete' does signal a destructive mutation, but nothing is said about irreversibility, required permissions, or side effects on attached policies. This is far too thin for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.
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?
It is a single short phrase with no filler and the object is front-loaded, but the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficiency. There is nothing to trim and nothing to reward.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description still omits everything else an agent needs: which rule set 'rule_id' refers to, the destructive consequence, and how it differs from toggle_acl_rule. A destructive tool with one undocumented parameter needs substantially more text.
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 0% and the single parameter 'rule_id' has no type description or constraints in the schema. The description does not mention the parameter at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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') is a literal translation of the tool name and title, adding no information beyond them. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as add_acl_rule or toggle_acl_rule. Per the rubric this is a tautology that restates the name/title.
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?
No when-to-use guidance is given. It does not say when to delete an ACL rule, whether a list_acl_rules call should precede it to obtain the rule_id, or how it relates to toggle_acl_rule (disable vs. delete).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.