delete_device_ipsec_phase1_interface

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose the key behavioral constraint: the delete will be rejected while a dependent phase2-interface exists, and which tool to call first. It omits whether the deletion is reversible, whether a commit/install step is required to push the change to the device, and any permission prerequisites — meaningful gaps for a destructive mutation, keeping it below 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the action sentence, followed by the ordering caveat, then a compact Args block. The 'Returns: Deletion result' line is dead weight since an output schema already exists, but overall there is little waste.

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?

Output schema covers return values and the Args block covers all inputs, so the description need only carry the operational caveats — which it does via the phase2 dependency. The remaining omission is whether the change requires a follow-up commit/install to take effect on the managed device.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does name all three parameters with the default for vdom. But the added meaning is thin — 'Phase1-interface (remote gateway) name' is the only real semantic enrichment over the schema titles, and there is no note on name format, name-vs-device uniqueness, or valid vdom values.

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 IPsec phase1-interface from a device's device DB') and scopes it to the device DB rather than an ADOM/package. It is trivially distinguishable from siblings like delete_device_ipsec_phase2_interface, update_device_ipsec_phase1_interface, and create_device_ipsec_phase1_interface.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition: any phase2-interface still pointing at this phase1name must be deleted first, and names the exact sibling tool (delete_device_ipsec_phase2_interface) to do it. It even explains the failure mode ('FortiManager rejects deleting a phase1-interface a phase2-interface still references'), so ordering is unambiguous.

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