VPS_deleteFirewallRuleV1

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns about a non-obvious side effect: 'Any virtual machine that has this firewall activated will lose sync with the firewall and will have to be synced again manually.' This is critical information for an AI agent.

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 three sentences: purpose, consequence, and a slightly redundant usage instruction. It is efficient but not perfectly concise; the last sentence could be omitted. No unnecessary fluff.

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 simple delete operation with a notable side effect, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, the consequence of its action, and its usage. There is no output schema, but none is needed for this operation.

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 input schema covers both parameters (firewallId, ruleId) with descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add any additional semantics beyond what is already in the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states 'Delete a specific firewall rule from a specified firewall,' using a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('firewall rule'). It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like VPS_createFirewallRuleV1 or VPS_updateFirewallRuleV1.

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 a clear indication of when to use this tool ('Use this endpoint to remove specific firewall rules') but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it. The mention of the manual sync consequence gives context.

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