delete_service_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the non-obvious referential-integrity rejection, which is genuine behavioral value, but omits that deletion is irreversible, whether permission/scoping is required, whether vdom defaults, and how a not-found object is reported. Adequate but materially incomplete for a destructive operation.

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-sentence summary followed by compact Parameters/Returns blocks; the blocking condition is front-loaded where it matters most. Slight redundancy with the schema in the parameter list, but nothing is padded.

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?

The "Returns: Deletion status" note partially compensates for the absence of an output schema, and the three parameters are simple. But without annotations, the description should still cover irreversibility and failure modes beyond the reference check, which it does not.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description's parameter list restates those labels nearly verbatim and adds little beyond marking vdom as optional. Baseline 3 is correct here.

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 custom service object"), which cleanly distinguishes it from delete_address_object and from update_service_object/create_service_object in the sibling set. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

Adds a concrete precondition: FortiOS refuses deletion while a policy or service group references the object. That tells the agent the operation can fail for reasons outside its control and that cleanup elsewhere may be needed first. It stops short of naming the follow-up tools (e.g. list_service_groups, policy lookups) or stating what to do on refusal.

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