opn_delete_firewall_rule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses savepoint behavior including version differences (OPNsense < 26.7 vs 26.7+), auto-revert timing, and the need for confirmation or backup. It also notes that changes apply immediately on 26.7+, which is critical behavioral context. However, it doesn't detail potential side effects like lockout risk beyond the hint.

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 well-structured and front-loaded. The first sentence states the action, and subsequent paragraphs cover usage, savepoint protection, and return values without redundancy. It is concise yet detailed, with every sentence providing necessary context.

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 complexity (savepoint handling, version differences, backup recommendation) and the absence of annotations, the description is thorough. It explains the return values ('revision' and 'result'), and references prerequisite tools. With a single parameter and output schema, this is complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly states the parameter 'uuid' and its purpose: 'Delete a firewall filter rule by UUID', and instructs to find the UUID. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't provide format or validation details, which are not needed for a simple UUID.

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 by UUID'. It specifies the resource (firewall firewall rule) and the method (delete), and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning savepoint protection and referencing other tools like opn_list_firewall_rules and opn_confirm_changes.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use this when you need to remove an existing MVC firewall rule.' It also instructs to use opn_list_firewall_rules first to find the UUID, and mentions taking a backup if savepoint_support is false, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use scenarios.

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