delete_ips_sensor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the main failure condition and return shape, but it does not state that deletion is permanent/irreversible or describe permission requirements.

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 short and front-loads the key warning. The Args and Returns sections are structured, though the return details are somewhat redundant because an output schema exists.

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?

For a destructive tool with no annotations, the description covers the core warning, both parameters, and the return shape. It remains incomplete on irreversibility, required permissions, and what to do about policy references before deletion.

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. It briefly explains both parameters as 'ADOM name' and 'Sensor name to delete,' which is adequate but adds no format, constraints, or examples beyond the parameter titles.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete an IPS sensor.' It clearly distinguishes this operation from the sibling tools create_ips_sensor, get_ips_sensor, list_ips_sensors, and update_ips_sensor.

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 that deletion 'will fail if the sensor is in use by policies' gives a clear prerequisite/condition. It does not explicitly name alternatives or tell the agent to check dependencies first, but the operational context is clear.

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