remove_wireless_security_profile

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds a key behavioral trait: the function is legacy and unsupported in RouterOS v7.x, meaning attempts to use it there are likely to fail. This is valuable beyond the annotations and does not contradict them.

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?

A single concise sentence that immediately delivers the critical deprecation warning. There is no redundant or filler content, and the message is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 is adequate for a deprecated tool with a simple schema: it alerts the agent to the unsupported status in v7.x. However, it omits any explanation of what the tool does, the meaning of parameters, or suggested alternatives. Given the simple nature and presence of an output schema, the missing pieces are notable but not severely detrimental.

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 0%, and the description provides no information about the 'name' or 'device' parameters. The agent is left to guess that 'name' refers to the wireless security profile name and 'device' likely targets a specific RouterOS device. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Legacy function - not supported in RouterOS v7.x' does not explicitly state that the tool removes a wireless security profile. The purpose is left to be inferred from the tool name and annotation title, making it clear but vague in the description itself. It does not differentiate from sibling tools beyond implying deprecation.

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 clearly signals when NOT to use the tool: on RouterOS v7.x, since it is not supported. This is a clear exclusion and provides important context for tool selection. However, it does not mention alternative tools or when it should be used, so it falls short of full 'when/when-not/alternatives' guidance.

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