delete_address

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the failure condition (address in use) and return structure, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, or behavior when the address does not exist. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise (2 sentences plus structured Args/Returns) and front-loads the purpose and warning. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the Args/Returns could be more concise.

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 a simple delete tool with an output schema, the description covers the purpose, a key failure condition, and return format. Missing details like behavior for non-existent addresses, but overall sufficient for effective use.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It provides basic explanations ('ADOM name', 'Address object name to delete'), which adds minimal value over the raw schema. With only two simple parameters, this is acceptable but not exemplary.

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 'firewall address object'. Among sibling tools like 'delete_address_group' and 'delete_firewall_policy', this tool's purpose is well differentiated.

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 includes a warning about failure when the address is in use, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_address' or other delete tools. No alternatives are mentioned.

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