delete_app_protocol_rule

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'delete', which is already evident from the tool name. It does not mention irreversibility, impact on firewall settings, or authorization requirements. The deletion's permanence and potential side effects are left undisclosed.

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 exceptionally concise, consisting of a single short sentence. It is free of fluff and gets to the point, but the brevity comes at the cost of essential details. It does not waste words, yet it could have achieved more with the same length.

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 tool's simple schema, the description is insufficiently complete. There is no output schema explanation, and the description fails to explain the deletion's impact, required permissions, or even that it targets a single rule. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap.

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, with no description coverage (0%). The tool description does not mention or explain rule_id at all. The agent is left without any context about what rule_id refers to, how to obtain it, or its format, greatly increasing the risk of incorrect invocation.

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 '删除应用协议控制' translates to 'Delete application protocol control', which provides a verb (delete) and a resource (application protocol control). However, it is vague and essentially paraphrases the tool name without clarifying that it deletes a specific rule by ID. It lacks specificity, making it hard to distinguish from related operations like toggle_app_protocol_rule.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, target use cases, or exclusions. Any context about needing a rule_id from list_app_protocol_rules is absent.

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