delete_waf_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the key failure condition (profile in use by policies) and the return status/message, but it does not state irreversibility, required permissions, or broader side effects of deletion.

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 action and warning before the Args and Returns sections. The two parameters are covered without repetition, and the return information is compact.

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 two-parameter delete operation with an output schema, the description covers purpose, the important in-use failure condition, both parameters, and return shape. It lacks permission or authorization context, but otherwise gives enough to call the tool correctly.

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 supply parameter meaning. It does identify both required arguments, adom as the ADOM name and name as the profile name to delete, but it adds no format, constraints, or validation details beyond that minimum.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a WAF profile.' That clearly distinguishes it from sibling WAF profile tools such as get_waf_profile, list_waf_profiles, create_waf_profile, and update_waf_profile.

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?

Usage is implied by the operation: use this to delete an existing WAF profile. The warning that deletion fails if the profile is in use is a useful precondition, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or what alternative to choose instead.

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