Delete TCP Mapping

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the specificity that deletion is irreversible, which is marginal value beyond the annotations. It does not disclose side effects (despite openWorldHint=true), auth requirements, or effects on live traffic. No contradiction with 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?

Two short sentences with zero filler. The primary action is front-loaded and the critical irreversibility warning follows immediately. Every word earns its place.

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 3-parameter delete tool, the description plus schema and annotations cover the essentials: what is deleted, which id to use, and that it is irreversible. However, nothing indicates what happens after deletion (e.g., whether the Cube must be restarted, whether the change is immediate, or what the response is), and there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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 cubeId, spaceId, and mappingId (including the cross-reference to list_tcp_mappings). The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('Cube TCP port mapping'), which clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_tcp_mapping and list_tcp_mappings. However, it largely restates the tool's name/title, adding only the 'Cube' scope and the irreversibility warning rather than richer differentiation.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives. 'Irreversible' implies caution but not when this tool should be selected over siblings. The only workflow hint ('see list_tcp_mappings') lives in the schema, not the description.

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