Delete Domain Forwarding Rule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden — and it discloses nothing. It does not state that the operation is destructive and irreversible, whether deleting a rule affects other forwarding/NAT behavior, what permissions are required, or what the response contains. The single word 'delete' merely duplicates the tool name.

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?

Six characters with no waste, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — there is no front-loaded explanation of effect, prerequisites, or outcome. Being short is not the same as being well-structured when the content is absent.

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. Everything else is missing, though: for a destructive one-parameter tool with zero annotations, the description never says how to obtain a valid rule_id, whether deletion is reversible, or what side effects occur on the device.

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 description says nothing about rule_id — not its format, not where to source it, not whether it must reference an existing rule. The only mitigating factor is that there is a single, self-evident integer identifier, so the gap is smaller than it would be with multiple opaque 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 names a specific verb and resource (delete + domain forwarding rule), which is enough to separate it from the add_/list_ domain-forwarding siblings. However, it adds nothing beyond the tool name and title — it is essentially the same string translated, with no scope, conditions, or differentiator of its own.

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, no prerequisites, and no mention that the rule_id must first be obtained from list_domain_forwarding_rules. An agent gets no routing help at all; the only reason this isn't a 1 is that the text is not actively misleading.

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