clear_static_nat

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

Annotations already indicate it's a write operation (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false) but do not disclose the specific nature of 'stale' rules or any side effects. The description adds the key contextual notion of 'stale' and the operation type (delete), which is useful. However, it doesn't explain what happens to related resources or whether it's idempotent, but given annotations cover the general safety, a 3 is fair.

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 short, ends with a period, and includes the API path, which is efficient. It front-loads the action and scope without any redundant text. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral context (deleting stale rules) and includes the API path. It could mention the return or error behavior, but given the tool's simplicity and annotations, it is adequately complete. The only missing aspect is an explicit alternative mention, but it doesn't hinder understanding.

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 100%, so both parameters (ip and confirm) are already documented in the schema. The description does not add extra semantics beyond the schema. The confirm parameter is implied as a confirmation flag, but that is already in the schema. Baseline 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 the action (delete), the resource (stale static NAT rules), and the criterion (by internal IP). It also includes the API path, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like remove_static_nat or drop_nat, though it doesn't explicitly name them. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies it is used for cleaning up stale/frozen NAT rules, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like remove_static_nat or drop_nat. It could benefit from specifying the condition or trigger for using this tool, but the main intent is reasonably clear.

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