sophos_delete_ip_host

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that deletion is by name and returns a status dictionary, which is consistent but does not add significant new behavioral 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?

The description is concise, using 8 lines including structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence is informative, with no redundancy or fluff. It is well front-loaded with the main action.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, usage context, parameters, and return value. It could mention idempotent behavior or error handling, but annotations and output schema fill some gaps. Overall adequately 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 description coverage is 50% (only 'name' is described in schema). The description compensates by providing clear explanations for both parameters: 'name' and 'client', adding meaning beyond the schema for the undocumented 'client' parameter.

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 an IP host object by name', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sophos_delete_fqdn_host and sophos_delete_ip_host_group by the resource type.

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 includes 'Use when deleting unused IP host objects from the firewall database', providing a specific context for when to use the tool. It implicitly advises against deleting objects that are in use, though it does not name alternative tools for verification.

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