delete_link

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses that both attached interfaces are unlinked and warns about hot-unplugging if the node is running. It does not mention reversibility or whether the network object is permanently destroyed, but for a delete operation this is adequate context.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the action, the key side effect, and the critical prerequisite. No filler or repetition, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool with only one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, where the ID comes from, the precondition (node stopped), and the consequence of ignoring it. The warning about hot-unplugging is particularly valuable for safe operation. Nothing important 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?

The schema only defines 'network_id' as an integer with no description. The description adds critical semantics by explaining it is the network_id returned by connect_nodes or readable from get_lab, making it clear where to obtain a valid value. This goes beyond the schema and fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 states 'Delete a link' with a specific resource type ('p2p network') and layer ('topology layer'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_node (deletes a node) and connect_nodes (creates a link). The verb 'Delete' is precise and the object is unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for use: the network_id comes from connect_nodes or get_lab, and the node must be stopped before deletion. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name an alternative for deleting a node, but the prerequisite and side-effect warning give solid usage guidance.

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