Delete a NAT record from the database permanently. Provide the record's ID and IP address, and confirm 'true' to remove it—this destructive operation cannot be undone.
Удалить запись о NAT из базы данных (nat/drop_nat). ДЕСТРУКТИВНО, служебная операция.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ID записи NAT | |
| ip | No | IP-адрес записи | |
| confirm | Yes | Нужно true, чтобы выполнить операцию. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces the destructive nature and adds the 'служебная операция' context. It does not add meaningful detail such as permanence of deletion, required permissions, or effects on related resources, but since the annotation layer covers the core safety profile, the description is not severely lacking.
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 extremely compact: one sentence explaining the action plus a bare warning. It is front-loaded with the purpose and destruction flag, and contains no filler or redundant explanations.
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?
A destructive deletion tool needs to clarify how to identify the target record. The schema marks both id and ip as optional and only confirm as required, but the description gives no guidance on whether at least one of id/ip must be provided or what happens if omitted. This is a serious gap for correct use, even though the schema itself is documented.
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%: id, ip, and confirm each have descriptive definitions. The description contributes nothing about the parameters, so with full schema documentation the 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 has a specific verb ('Удалить' – delete) and resource ('запись о NAT' – NAT record), so an agent can tell it performs a deletion operation. It does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling tools 'remove_static_nat' or 'clear_static_nat', though the differing resource names make the distinction inferable.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. The phrase 'служебная операция' (service operation) hints at an internal helper but does not describe conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives, so an agent has no basis for deciding when to pick it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.