Delete a Link

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the destructive warning itself is redundant; the added value is the mandatory user-confirmation workflow, which is genuinely beyond the annotation. However, it does not say what happens to the ports or devices after removal, or how a failure (nonexistent link) is reported—output schema covers returns, but post-conditions are unstated.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then the critical confirmation rule, then two compact examples. Every line earns its place and nothing is buried.

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?

Two required params are fully documented and an output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. Minor gap: no guidance on the state of ports after removal or on handling a link that doesn't exist.

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 both 'device' and 'port' documented with format examples, so the schema carries the load. The description's examples ('R1 Gi0/0', 'cable between PC0 and the switch') add light usage flavor but no semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Remove the cable attached to a device port,' which is distinct from connect_two_devices and delete_device_from_network in the sibling list. It never names an alternative tool explicitly, so differentiation is left partly to inference, but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger protocol ('Always ask Confirm removal of the link on [device] [port]? and wait for the user's yes') plus example user phrasings that map directly to invocation. It stops short of naming exclusions or alternatives, such as when to use delete_device_from_network instead.

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