delete_firewall_policy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose that deletion is permanent and that it modifies device configuration. It omits permission/auth requirements, dependency or referential-integrity effects, whether the change is committed immediately to the FortiGate, and confirmation/rollback behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then short sections for parameters and returns. The second sentence ("removes an existing firewall policy... permanently deleting the specified security rule") largely repeats the first, and the parameter list duplicates the schema.

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?

No output schema exists, so the "Returns: Deletion status confirmation" line usefully fills that gap. However, for a destructive, annotation-free mutation tool the description leaves out device reachability expectations, VDOM scoping implications, and failure modes, which an agent would need.

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%, so the schema already documents device_id, policy_id and vdom, making 3 the baseline. The description restates the parameters nearly verbatim, adding only that omitting vdom falls back to the device default.

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 firewall policy from a FortiGate device"), which cleanly separates it from create_firewall_policy, update_firewall_policy, move_firewall_policy and list_firewall_policies. It does not explicitly name those siblings or explain the difference, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., whether the policy must be unused or detached from references), and no warning about mitigations such as backup_config before deleting. The only hint that it is destructive is the word "permanently" in the body.

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