firewall_policy_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose behavioral aspects such as irreversibility of deletion, side effects on related rules, or permissions required for the 'vdom' parameter (especially '*' for all VDOMs).

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 a single sentence, concise and front-loaded. However, it is borderline under-specified, trading completeness for brevity. It earns its place by stating the core action but could benefit from more context.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature and the presence of a non-trivial vdom parameter, the description lacks critical details like confirmation behavior, error handling, and prerequisites. The output schema exists but is not shown; the description should still hint at expected outcomes or constraints.

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%; both parameters (policy_id, vdom) are already well-described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'IPv4 firewall policy'. It distinguishes from siblings like firewall_policy_create, firewall_policy_get, and firewall_policy_update, and specifies IPv4 to differentiate from the IPv6 counterpart (firewall_policy6_list).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., policy must exist), when not to use, or context like dependency checks before deletion.

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