openwisp_delete_vpn

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the underlying HTTP DELETE method, which hints at a destructive, irreversible operation, but it says nothing about cascading effects on certificates, devices, or templates, permission requirements, or failure modes.

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, front-loaded fragments with no wasted words; the category tag and endpoint are compactly stated. It is arguably too terse rather than verbose, but structure is sound.

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 destructive delete with zero annotations and no output schema, the description is under-specified: it omits consequences, idempotency, permission needs, and how to obtain the ID. An agent could call it, but not confidently or safely.

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% and the single 'id' parameter is documented as 'VPN UUID or ID' in the schema itself. The description's '{id}' path notation matches the schema but adds no format or sourcing detail beyond it, so the 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 ('Delete a VPN resource') and the category tag plus the HTTP DELETE endpoint make the purpose unambiguous. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling operations like openwisp_list_vpns, openwisp_create_vpn, and openwisp_update_vpn by action, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites (required permissions, whether the VPN must be unreferenced, whether the UUID can come from openwisp_list_vpns). The agent must infer all of this from the tool name alone.

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