remove_filter_rule

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is established. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that—it notes that rule_id should be from list output, which implies the rule must exist. It does not contradict annotations, but it also does not elaborate on irreversibility or error behavior, which annotations already partially cover.

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 concise: one action sentence plus a focused note. The note is structured as a bullet point for readability and front-loads the key information about rule_id. No wasted words or redundant details.

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?

Given the tool is a simple removal operation with only one required parameter, the description covers the essential task, the parameter source, and the device context. An output schema exists, so return value details are unnecessary. It lacks explicit mention of prerequisites (rule must exist) or post-removal effects, but annotations and the note about list output provide enough context for a capable agent. Slight gap in not explaining what happens for a nonexistent rule, but overall complete enough.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does exactly that for the required parameter rule_id, specifying the format (e.g., '*1' or '0') and its source ('use the ID from list output'). The optional device parameter remains undocumented, but it is a standard optional parameter across sibling tools and less critical.

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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'Removes a firewall filter rule from the MikroTik device.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like enable_filter_rule, disable_filter_rule, update_filter_rule, and move_filter_rule, which operate on the same resource but perform different actions.

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 implicitly conveys when to use the tool: when you need to remove a firewall filter rule. It provides a useful note on sourcing rule_id from list output, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when NOT to use this tool (e.g., consider disable_filter_rule for temporary deactivation). No direct comparison with sibling tools is given.

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