Delete ACL rule

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so 'IRREVERSIBLE' mostly reinforces what is structured, though it adds explicit severity. The description omits behavior an agent would want: that a call without confirm='YES' returns a preview instead of deleting, and that the idempotentHint means repeated deletes are safe.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the risk warning; nothing wasted. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, so length itself is not the problem.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description should explain the confirm/dry_run two-step pattern and what a preview returns or what a missing rule raises. Instead an agent must read the schema to discover that calling without confirm='YES' silently does nothing but preview.

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?

The description mentions no parameters at all, while schema coverage is only 67% and it is the description's omission of the confirm/dry_run safety gate — the most consequential part of this tool's contract — that leaves the biggest gap. Below the 3 baseline because it adds nothing beyond the schema.

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 ('Deletes an ACL rule') plus the scope ('on the current site'), which cleanly separates it from unifi_net_update_acl_rule and unifi_net_get_acl_rule. It doesn't name any sibling explicitly, so it stops short of 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g. update_acl_rule to modify, delete_acl_rules for bulk), and no mention of the preview/confirm workflow that the schema requires. The only hint is the capitalized warning, which is a caution 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.