sophos_delete_firewall_rule

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds that deletion is permanent and returns an API response status dictionary, providing additional context beyond the annotations.

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 concise sentences covering purpose, usage, and parameters/returns. No redundant information, and the structure is clear and front-loaded.

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 simple deletion tool with an output schema, the description effectively covers what it does, when to use, and parameters. It does not mention prerequisites like rule existence, but sibling tools handle related operations, making this fairly 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 has 50% coverage (description only for 'name'). The description's 'Args' section repeats the name description but adds meaningful detail for 'client' (optional SophosFirewallClient instance), compensating for the schema gap.

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 'Delete a firewall rule by name,' specifying the action and resource. The 'Use when' line adds context for obsolete security policies, distinguishing it from siblings like create, update, or list.

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 advises use for permanently removing an obsolete security policy, which guides when to invoke it. Does not explicitly exclude alternative scenarios or mention other tools, but the 'use when' directive is sufficient context.

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