delete_dlp_profile

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full safety burden. It does disclose the destructive nature and the key failure mode (profile referenced by policies) plus a return shape. It omits whether the deletion is permanent, whether an ADOM lock is required, and what permissions are needed — meaningful gaps for an unannotated delete operation.

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 failure warning are front-loaded before the args block, so an agent reading only the first lines still gets the critical information. The Args/Returns structure is boilerplate that repeats parameter names already in the schema, costing a little space but nothing harmful.

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 restating return keys is redundant, and the failure warning covers the main behavioral risk. Still, for a two-parameter destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, the absence of any mention of ADOM locking, permissions, or irreversibility leaves the definition only minimally 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 description coverage is 0% (properties carry only titles "Adom" and "Name"), so the description must compensate. It does document both required parameters in plain terms (ADOM name, profile name to delete), though it adds no format examples or constraints such as case sensitivity or naming rules.

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 first sentence names a specific verb+resource ("Delete a DLP profile"), which cleanly separates it from siblings like delete_webfilter_profile or delete_waf_profile by resource. It doesn't explicitly differentiate against related DLP siblings (get_dlp_profile, update_dlp_profile), but the operation 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?

The WARNING gives one important precondition (fails if in use by policies), which is real usage context. However, it never points to an alternative such as find_object_usage or get_dlp_profile to verify whether the profile is in use before attempting deletion, and no other when-to-use guidance is offered.

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