delete_firewall_policy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only restates the operation. It omits that deletion is destructive and irreversible, whether it requires admin rights, what happens to associated rules/references, and what the return looks like. Nothing beyond the verb is disclosed.

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 with no waste. It is appropriately sized but is arguably too terse for a destructive operation, which is a completeness concern rather than a conciseness one.

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 destructive delete tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no behavioral notes, the description is severely lacking. An agent cannot determine safety, reversibility, permissions, or side effects from this definition.

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 policyid and vdom both documented in the schema (including the VDOM default). The description adds no parameter detail, but the schema already does the heavy lifting, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 a firewall policy'), which is clear and unambiguous on its own. However, it does not differentiate itself from siblings like update_firewall_policy or get_firewall_policy beyond the verb, and offers no scope detail (e.g. what a policy controls or what deletion entails).

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no mention of alternatives. An agent gets zero help deciding between this and update_firewall_policy or move_firewall_policy.

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