delete_port_mapping

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only indicates a delete operation, but fails to mention consequences (e.g., whether the deletion is irreversible), prerequisites, or side effects. This is minimal disclosure at best.

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 (four Chinese characters), but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It lacks essential information and does not earn its place as a meaningful description.

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?

For a deletion tool with one parameter, the description is insufficient. Even though an output schema exists, the lack of annotations, parameter explanations, and usage guidance leaves significant gaps. The description is barely above a tautology.

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 required integer parameter 'rule_id', but with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what 'rule_id' refers to, though the name implies it is the identifier of the port mapping. The description adds no meaning beyond what the parameter name already suggests.

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 '删除端口映射' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (port mapping), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like delete_port_forwarding_rule, which may cause confusion.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_port_forwarding_rule or delete_acl_rule. The description merely states the action without any contextual cues or exclusions.

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