delete_port_forwarding_rule

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

There are no annotations, and the description only restates the action implied by the name. It does not disclose that the deletion is permanent, may disrupt traffic, or any other behavioral consequences.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It omits essential context about the operation's effects and parameter source.

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?

Although the tool is simple and an output schema exists, the description lacks enough context for an agent to use it confidently. It doesn't mention that the rule must already exist, how to find the rule_id, or any side effects, so the description is not complete for the task.

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 a single required integer rule_id with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not explain what rule_id references or how to obtain it, leaving the parameter entirely unsupported.

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 '删除端口分流' clearly indicates deleting a port forwarding/diversion rule, matching the tool's name and distinguishing it from add/list counterparts. It is specific enough, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar delete tools like delete_port_mapping.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it indicate that rule_id should be obtained from list_port_forwarding_rules first.

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