Delete firewall zone

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely pre-supplied; "IRREVERSIBLE" reinforces it in prose. However, the description omits the important behavioral gate that without confirm="YES" the tool returns a preview rather than deleting — a detail the agent must dig out of the schema.

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 the risk warning; nothing is padded. It is efficient but borders on under-specification rather than being a model of tight structure.

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 delete with three parameters, no output schema and no dependency information, the description leaves real gaps: what happens to referencing policies, what the preview response looks like, and whether deletion is blocked by dependencies. Annotations cover safety but not consequences.

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 67%: confirm and dry_run carry their own descriptions, while id is undocumented in both places. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the schema does the heavy lifting — baseline 3 is appropriate for this coverage level.

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 a firewall zone") that unambiguously separates it from the create/update/get siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative path, but the delete semantics are clear from the verb alone.

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 deletion is appropriate, no mention that a zone still referenced by firewall policies may fail or be blocked, and no pointer to unifi_net_get_firewall_zone or unifi_net_list_firewall_policies for pre-checking. The agent must infer all preconditions.

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