delete_local_in_policy6

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It importantly discloses that the operation is irreversible ('cannot be undone') and outlines the return shape, but it omits permission requirements, behavior when the policy ID does not exist, and any side effects on dependent objects.

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 irreversible warning are front-loaded, followed by a compact Args and Returns block. The Returns section duplicates an existing output schema, but overall the description is efficient and easy to scan.

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 simple delete operation with an output schema already available, the description covers the core purpose, destructive warning, all parameters, and return keys. It is nearly complete, though it could note authorization or preconditions for a mutation with no annotations.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names and briefly explains all three parameters (adom, package, policyid), but the explanations are minimal and do not add format, constraints, or discovery guidance (e.g., how to obtain a valid policyid).

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 IPv6 local-in policy.' The IPv6 qualifier cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling delete_local_in_policy (IPv4) and other local_in_policy6 tools.

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 use case is implied clearly by 'Delete an IPv6 local-in policy,' but the description never explicitly names alternatives such as update_local_in_policy6 or delete_local_in_policy, nor does it state prerequisites like needing the ADOM unlocked. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and resource.

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