delete_local_in_policy

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does well on the most important trait: it explicitly warns the operation cannot be undone. It also documents the return shape. It stops short of stating permission/adom-lock requirements or that changes must be committed (commit_adom) to take effect.

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 statement is front-loaded, the destructive warning follows immediately, and the Args/Returns block is compact. The docstring scaffolding ('Args:', 'Returns:', 'dict:') is slightly ceremonial but does not obstruct reading.

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 duplicated Returns block is not needed for correctness, and the description covers operation, parameters, and irreversibility. It omits FortiManager-specific workflow context an agent would want — that deletion is staged and requires a commit, and what happens if the policyid does not exist — leaving a noticeable gap for a destructive operation.

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 partially does: it glosses adom as 'ADOM name', package as 'policy package name', and policyid as 'Local-in policy ID to delete'. These add only modest meaning over the bare titles ('Adom', 'Package', 'Policyid') and give no format/validity hints such as whether policyid must reference an existing policy in that package.

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 IPv4 local-in policy), which lets an agent separate it from the IPv6 sibling delete_local_in_policy6 and from update/get variants. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as delete_local_in_policy6 for IPv6 policies or the need to commit the ADOM afterwards. The only usage-relevant signal is the irreversibility warning, which is contextual rather than routing guidance.

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