delete_vlan

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses two important refusal conditions and that dry_run defaults to true and previews, which is meaningful safety context. It still omits auth requirements, reversibility, and exactly what dry_run=false commits.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the most important constraint. Every sentence adds operational value; no filler.

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 destructive 2-param tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, refusal preconditions, and dry-run default – enough to call safely. Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Missing permissions/reversibility details are minor gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains dry_run's default and preview behavior, and the refusal conditions constrain vlan_id (not 1, no member ports). However, it does not define vlan_id's type or range beyond the schema, leaving half the parameter space to inference.

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?

States a specific verb 'Delete' and resource 'VLAN'. No sibling performs VLAN deletion (create_vlan, list_vlans, get_vlan_membership are distinct), so the purpose is unmistakable even without naming an alternative.

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?

Explicitly states when the tool refuses to run (VLAN 1, VLANs with member ports), which is strong when-not guidance. It does not name an alternative workflow (e.g., removing member ports first), so it falls short of full when/alternatives guidance.

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