delete_cmdb_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral constraint that FortiOS refuses deletion when the object is still referenced elsewhere. However, it omits other critical traits for a destructive operation: whether deletion is irreversible, what permissions or device connectivity are required, and what failure responses look like beyond the reference constraint.

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 short, front-loads the operation and endpoint, and uses a clear parameter/return structure. The parameter list is somewhat redundant given the fully documented schema, which keeps it from a 5.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core operation, the endpoint, and one important constraint. It is not complete enough: it says only 'Deletion status' as the return and lacks irreversibility, permission, and broader failure-mode context that an agent needs before invoking a delete.

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 100% and the description's parameter list largely restates the schema field descriptions (device_id, path, key, vdom) without adding syntax, format, or constraints. The schema already documents vdom as optional with a null default, so the description adds little beyond baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Delete a configuration object') and names the REST endpoint DELETE /api/v2/cmdb/{path}/{key}, making the operation unambiguous. It does not differentiate the generic tool from sibling-specific deletes such as delete_service_object or delete_address_object, which an agent might reasonably confuse.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'from any table' and the name; there is no explicit statement of when to choose this generic delete over specific delete tools. The note that FortiOS refuses deletion while the object is still referenced gives useful context but is a behavioral constraint rather than usage guidance.

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