Removes a FortiGate address group by name; it fails if any firewall policy still uses it, so detach references first.
Delete an address group (fails while a policy still uses it).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Group name | |
| vdom | No | VDOM (default: FORTIGATE_VDOM, usually root) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the failure condition tied to policy usage, but says nothing about irreversibility, required permissions, or what happens to group members on 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?
A single tight sentence with zero waste, front-loading the action and appending the key constraint.
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 tool with no output schema this is minimally adequate; it identifies the target and one constraint, but a delete operation with no annotation coverage would benefit from noting irreversibility or permission requirements.
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% with only two parameters (name, vdom), both documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond what the schema already provides, so 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?
The description states a specific verb+resource ('Delete an address group'), which clearly distinguishes it from the many other delete_* siblings (delete_address, delete_service, delete_dns_zone). It is precise but does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 'fails while a policy still uses it' is an implied precondition that tells the agent when the call will be rejected, but it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or what to do first (e.g., remove the group from the policy).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.