delete_antivirus_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it does disclose the destructive nature and the in-use failure mode, which is the most important behavior. It omits irreversibility, whether an ADOM lock is required, and permission prerequisites, which matter for a delete operation on a FortiManager object.

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 purpose and the warning are front-loaded and the whole thing is short. The Args/Returns blocks are boilerplate, and the Returns section largely duplicates the existing output schema, but the cost is small.

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?

An output schema exists, so the Returns block is redundant rather than necessary. For an unannotated destructive tool, the description covers the key failure mode but leaves out irreversibility and any prerequisite steps, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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 compensate; it does provide a one-line gloss for both parameters (adom = ADOM name, name = profile name to delete), which is more than the bare titles. It adds no format, casing, or lookup guidance, so the compensation is minimal.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete an antivirus profile'), which cleanly separates it from the many sibling delete_* tools for other profile types. It does not explicitly name a sibling or a related alternative, so it lands just short of the top band.

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 WARNING line gives a concrete precondition for failure (profile in use by firewall policies), which is real usage guidance. However, it never says how to proceed — e.g. use find_object_usage or policy_lookup to check references first, or list_antivirus_profiles to confirm the exact name — so the when-to-use context is implied rather than prescribed.

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