opnsense_nat_source_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses destructiveness and the need for explicit confirmation (confirm=true). It does not discuss side effects like the need to apply changes, but is adequate for a delete operation.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the verb and object, making it easy to scan.

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?

The description lacks mention that changes likely require an explicit apply (see sibling opnsense_nat_apply) and does not describe return values or error handling. For a simple delete, it is minimally adequate but could be more 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 50% (uuid described, confirm not). The description adds that confirm must be true via 'requires explicit confirmation', partially compensating. But it adds no detail about uuid format or validation beyond the schema.

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 tool deletes a Source NAT rule, distinguishing it from sibling tools like add, get, list, toggle, and update.

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 explicitly warns that the operation is destructive and requires confirmation, guiding the agent to use caution. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like toggling.

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