delete_virtual_ip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool removes an existing object from device configuration, that in-use Virtual IPs cannot be deleted, and that it returns a deletion status confirmation, but it omits permission requirements, failure behavior, and whether deletion is immediate or reversible.

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 structured with clear sections and front-loads the main action. However, the first two sentences substantially repeat the same point, and the Parameters section duplicates schema descriptions that are already at 100% coverage, reducing efficiency.

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 description covers the core action, the main deletion constraint, and the return confirmation, which is important because no output schema exists. Still, for a destructive tool with no annotations, it should ideally say more about required permissions, error cases, and reversibility to be fully complete.

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 all parameters, which sets a baseline of 3. The description adds some value beyond the schema by clarifying that vdom is optional and uses the device default, making the parameter behavior easier to apply correctly.

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: deleting a Virtual IP from a FortiGate device, and clarifies it removes an existing Virtual IP object from the configuration. This distinguishes it from sibling Virtual IP tools such as list_virtual_ips, create_virtual_ip, update_virtual_ip, and get_virtual_ip_detail.

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 description implies use when removing an existing Virtual IP and includes one useful when-not condition: Virtual IPs in use by policies cannot be deleted. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool with alternatives such as update_virtual_ip or explain prerequisites for successful deletion.

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