delete_network

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

Beyond destructiveHint=true, the description adds that deletion is 'removed immediately and persisted on the UniFi console' and explains the consequences of dropping dependent clients/routes. It also reveals the confirm gate as a safety mechanism, which is more behavioral detail than the annotation alone provides.

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 compact and front-loaded: one-sentence purpose, a terse safety warning, and a clean Args list. Every sentence adds operational value, with no filler or repeated boilerplate.

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 four-parameter, one-required-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the target, site/device selection, confirm requirement, risk, and prerequisite listing. Nothing an agent needs to safely invoke it 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 input schema already documents all four parameters. The Args section in the description mirrors the schema instead of adding new parameter-level semantics; the extra value is behavioral context, not parameter detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a network/VLAN by name or ID.' This immediately identifies the mutation and target, and the deletion semantics clearly set it apart from sibling network tools like get_networks, create_network, and update_network.

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?

It explicitly requires confirm=true, warns about dropping clients and routes, and instructs the agent to 'List networks with get_networks first to confirm the target.' This gives a concrete prerequisite and safe workflow, so the agent knows exactly when and how to execute the deletion safely.

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