vnisDeleteFabricVniMember

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this operation is reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens on success/failure (e.g., error if member doesn't exist). For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the key action ('Delete') and target, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, and there's no wasted verbiage.

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's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like idempotency, error conditions, or return values. For a deletion operation with three required parameters, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage by an agent.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for 'fabricId', 'vniId', and 'memberId' in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already documented in the schema (e.g., format examples or relationships between parameters). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Delete') and the target ('a specific VNI member'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'vnisDeleteFabricVni' (which deletes the entire VNI) by specifying 'member' deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the resource hierarchy (fabric→VNI→member), which could be slightly more specific.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the member must exist), related operations (e.g., use 'vnisGetFabricVniMember' to check first), or sibling tools like 'vnisAddFabricVniMembers' for adding members. Without this context, an agent might struggle with proper sequencing.

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