delete_address

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the dependency failure mode (a policy or group reference blocks deletion), which is the highest-risk behavior for this tool. However, it omits permission/auth requirements, whether the call is idempotent on a missing name, and whether success returns anything — gaps that matter for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the action and target, with the constraint in a compact parenthetical. Every clause earns its place and nothing is wasted.

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 two-parameter delete tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the one piece of context an agent genuinely needs before calling — the reference dependency that causes failure. It is nearly complete, missing only auth/idempotency notes.

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 100% for both parameters ('name' and 'vdom'), so the schema already documents them fully. The description adds no syntax, naming convention, or default details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Delete') and a precise resource ('a firewall address'), which cleanly separates it from delete_address_group, delete_firewall_policy, and delete_static_route in the sibling list. An agent can identify the target object type without opening the schema.

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 parenthetical establishes one real precondition ('fails while a policy or group still uses it'), which implicitly tells the agent to detach references first, but no alternatives or when-to-use routing is given (e.g., delete_address_group for groups, update_address to modify instead). Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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