pve_firewall_rule_remove

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of disclosure. It clearly states the mutation nature, dry-run behavior, optimistic locking via digest, position shifting, and synchronous execution.

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 and well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose, then explains the important workflow details in a few sentences without unnecessary repetition.

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 complexity of optimistic locking and position shifts, the description covers the essential workflow and safety mechanism. However, it does not mention error conditions or describe the output schema, though an output schema exists. The description is sufficient for correct usage but could be slightly more thorough.

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 description adds meaning for the 'pos', 'digest', and 'confirm' parameters by explaining the plan and digest workflow. However, it does not explain other parameters like 'kind', 'node', 'vmid', and 'scope', which have low schema coverage (13%). This leaves gaps in understanding how to target the correct firewall rule.

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 it deletes a firewall rule by position. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pve_firewall_rule_add, pve_firewall_rule_update, and pve_firewall_rules_list by specifying the operation and method.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: to delete a firewall rule by its index position. It explains the dry-run default, the need for the digest, and the potential issue of position shifting, which is crucial for correct usage.

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