delete_device

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the destructive nature ('cannot be undone'), that it does not affect the actual device, and describes the return structure. It lacks details on auth needs or rate limits, but provides sufficient 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?

The description is well-structured: brief one-liner, paragraph, Args/Returns sections, and an example. Every sentence adds value with no fluff, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 presence of an output schema and sibling tools, the description covers purpose, effect, parameters, return values, and provides an example. It is fairly complete, though it could mention what happens if the device does not exist.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining each parameter: adom, device, and flags (with example). This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 device from FortiManager' and explains the scope: 'Removes a device registration. Does not affect the actual device or its configuration.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_device or get_device.

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 explains when to use the tool (to remove a device from FortiManager management) and warns that it cannot be undone. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or prerequisites, but given the sibling tools, no other deletion tool exists for devices.

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