opn_delete_nat_rule

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It thoroughly discloses the savepoint behavior across OPNsense versions: auto-revert on <26.7 unless confirmed via opn_confirm_changes, and immediate unrevertible changes on 26.7+. It also explains the return value ('revision' and 'result') and warns about potential lockout, making the tool's behavior highly transparent.

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 every sentence adds value, but it is slightly verbose. The opening sentence is front-loaded, and the version-specific paragraphs are necessary. The line 'Use this when you need to remove an existing NAT rule' is somewhat redundant with the first sentence, but it reinforces usage intent.

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?

Despite no annotations, the description covers all critical context: purpose, when to use, version-specific behavior, prerequisites, backup safety, and return value. The output schema exists but the description adds clarification for the return keys. The tool's complexity (savepoint behavior, lockout risk) is fully addressed.

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 does so by explaining that the 'uuid' parameter is the identifier of the NAT rule to delete, and instructs the agent to find it via opn_list_nat_rules. This fully clarifies the meaning and origin of the only parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a NAT port forwarding rule by UUID'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like opn_add_nat_rule and opn_update_nat_rule, and the 'by UUID' qualifier makes the operation precise.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this when you need to remove an existing NAT rule.' It also provides critical usage context: check opn_mcp_info for savepoint support, back up with opn_download_config if needed, and find the UUID via opn_list_nat_rules. This is clear, actionable guidance with sibling-tool references.

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