system_interface_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states the action. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the interface must be unused, if references become invalid, or if the operation is reversible. The lack of detail is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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, succinct sentence 'Delete a network interface.' While concise, it lacks structure and additional context that would be helpful for an agent. It earns its place but could be improved by adding a second sentence about usage notes.

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 that the output schema exists, return values are not needed in the description. However, for a delete operation, the description should include context such as required permissions, effect on dependent objects, or confirmation prompts. The current description is too minimal for an agent to safely invoke this tool.

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 'name' and 'vdom' parameters have clear descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already handles parameter semantics adequately.

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 'Delete a network interface.' It uses a specific verb (delete) and resource (network interface), and the tool name 'system_interface_delete' aligns perfectly. Among sibling tools like create, get, list, update, this is the only delete variant, so it is well-distinguished.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., system_interface_update for deactivation). No prerequisites, conditions, or warnings about dependencies are mentioned. The description offers no context for appropriate use.

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