VPS_deleteFirewallV1

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that any VM with the firewall activated will have it deactivated automatically. This is a key side effect. However, it does not mention error conditions or prerequisites, but the main behavior is covered.

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?

Three concise sentences: action, consequence, usage recommendation. No fluff. Front-loaded with the primary verb.

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 tool with one parameter, the description covers the central behavior (deletion and auto-deactivation). It does not mention return values (no output schema) or error handling, but given simplicity, it is sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter description 'Firewall ID.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond referencing the schema. Baseline 3 applies as the schema already does the work.

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 the action: 'Delete a specified firewall.' It distinguishes from siblings like VPS_deactivateFirewallV1 (which deactivates without deleting) and VPS_deleteFirewallRuleV1 (deletes a rule, not the firewall). The mention of automatic deactivation of VMs further clarifies scope.

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 usage guidance: 'Use this endpoint to remove unused firewall configurations.' It implies when to use but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like VPS_deactivateFirewallV1 or VPS_deleteFirewallRuleV1, leaving some ambiguity.

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