Delete a network segment

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes well beyond that: it enumerates exactly what is destroyed (Wi-Fi networks, policy, DHCP pool, NAT, bridge, VLAN trunking on every switch port), warns about a confusing partial outcome ('removing the bridge alone leaves the VLAN trunked'), states the user-visible impact (devices lose connection), and documents a refusal case.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler, with the destructive scope front-loaded ahead of the caveat and the refusal condition. Each sentence supplies decision-relevant information.

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 single-parameter, non-hierarchical destructive tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: the cascade of side effects, the safety exclusion, and the user-facing consequence. Nothing an agent needs before invoking it is missing.

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 a single 'bridge' parameter already documented with an example ('Bridge2'), so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds no further semantics about the parameter's naming or format. Baseline 3 is 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 ('Removes a segment') and immediately scopes it with the full cascade of dependent objects it takes with it. An agent can distinguish this from create_segment, list_segments, or update_device without opening any 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?

Gives a clear precondition/exclusion ('Refuses the home segment') and enough consequence detail to judge whether deletion is the right action. It does not name an alternative tool or describe the update/rename path as a less destructive option, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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