Delete Port Mapping

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the word 'delete'. It does not state that the operation is destructive and irreversible, whether confirmation or elevated permissions are required, or how failures (e.g., unknown rule_id) are handled.

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, so it is not verbose, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness: every sentence that could earn its place 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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the description leaves the core calling information missing: no parameter meaning, no destructive-operation context, and no routing to the listing tool that supplies rule_id. Inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 description anywhere, so the description must compensate — but it adds no meaning whatsoever about what rule_id is, how to obtain it (e.g., via list_port_mappings), or its format.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('删除端口映射' / delete port mapping), which tells the agent exactly what it does. However, it merely restates the tool name and title without any scope, and gives no differentiation from the adjacent list_port_mappings / add_port_mapping / delete_port_forwarding_rule siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_port_forwarding_rule or the list/add counterparts, no preconditions, and no note about needing the rule to exist first. Usage is only implied by the obviousness of the verb.

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