delete_address_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one valuable trait: reference-blocking by policies/groups. It omits other behavioral facts an agent needs for a destructive operation, such as irreversibility, required permissions, and whether dependent objects are cascaded or orphaned.

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 failure condition is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the parameter/return lists are terse. Some space is spent restating schema text, which is mild waste but not bloat.

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 three-parameter delete tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the operation, inputs, key failure mode, and a bare return value ('Deletion status'). The return value's shape is vague and irreversible-deletion semantics are unstated, keeping it below a 5.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented; the description's parameter list is largely a restatement ('Identifier of the FortiGate device' vs the schema's 'FortiGate device identifier'). It adds no format, scoping, or VDOM-selection guidance beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete an address object'), which cleanly distinguishes it from delete_service_object and delete_address_group in the sibling list. An agent can pick it out without opening the schema.

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 line 'FortiOS refuses while a policy or group still references it' gives a concrete precondition for failure, which effectively tells the agent when this call will not succeed. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. remove_address_group_members, delete_firewall_policy) that would resolve that state.

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