opn_delete_firewall_rule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It honestly describes the destructive nature of the deletion and the critical behavioral trait that changes auto-revert in 60 seconds unless confirmed. This transparency helps the agent understand the tool's impact.

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. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, followed by usage guidance, behavioral notes, a prerequisite suggestion, and return value information. Each sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 simplicity (one required parameter), the description covers the workflow: identify UUID, delete, and confirm. It mentions the output schema (revision and result). While it doesn't explicitly handle errors or non-existent rules, the context is sufficient for a delete operation.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for the uuid parameter, but the tool description adds value by explaining that the UUID identifies the rule to delete and how to obtain it ('Use opn_list_firewall_rules first to find the UUID'). This provides necessary context beyond the schema.

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 a firewall filter rule'), the resource ('firewall filter rule'), and the method ('by UUID'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like opn_add_firewall_rule and opn_list_firewall_rules by specifying the operation 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 explicitly says 'Use this when you need to remove an existing MVC firewall rule.' It provides a prerequisite step ('Use opn_list_firewall_rules first to find the UUID') and informs about the auto-revert mechanism and the need to confirm with opn_confirm_changes, guiding the agent on when and how to use the tool.

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