VPS_deleteFirewallRuleV1

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

With no annotations, the description discloses a key behavioral 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 adds significant value, though it lacks details on idempotency or error handling.

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, direct and front-loaded. The third sentence restates the purpose, causing minor redundancy, but overall it is concise and to the point without wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main action and a critical side effect. It does not mention prerequisites or error cases, but for a delete operation, these are adequately inferred.

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 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides (firewallId and ruleId are described as integer IDs). No additional constraints or formats are explained.

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' and 'Use this endpoint to remove specific firewall rules,' establishing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like VPS_deleteFirewallV1 (deletes entire firewall) and VPS_createFirewallRuleV1.

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 side-effect warning about VMs losing sync but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like VPS_updateFirewallRuleV1 or VPS_deleteFirewallV1. Implicit guidance is present through naming, but explicit comparisons are missing.

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