delete_firewall_policy

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the operation is mutating, removal is immediate and persisted, confirm=true is mandatory because traffic flow changes, and predefined controller policies are refused. These details go well beyond the annotation and give the agent an accurate safety and side-effect profile.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and clearly organized into behavioral notes and an Args block. It is efficient and readable, but the Args section largely duplicates the input schema descriptions, adding minor redundancy rather than earning each sentence entirely.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers all critical context: what is deleted, persistence, safety gate, refused inputs, how to source the ID, and site/device targeting. Nothing essential for safe and correct invocation is missing.

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 four parameters fully. The description's Args section repeats the same text rather than adding new semantic meaning. It does not explain formats, valid values, or additional constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with 'Delete a zone-based firewall policy', giving a specific verb and resource that clearly identifies the tool's function. It also distinguishes it from related sibling tools like delete_firewall_rule by specifying 'zone-based firewall policy'. This is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 explicitly states the required confirm=true gate, explains why it is required ('removing a policy changes traffic flow'), and notes that predefined controller policies are refused. It also directs the agent to obtain the policy_id from get_firewall_policies, providing clear guidance on the correct source and the condition under which deletion is disallowed.

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