Remove port forwarding rule

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

Goes beyond the annotations (destructive, idempotent, not read-only) by disclosing refusal behavior on ambiguous matches and protected ports, plus the dry_run default that turns a destructive call into a preview. It doesn't say what the refusal or dry-run response looks like, which is the remaining gap for a destructive tool.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: action, selectors, safety constraints, and the recovery path. Key risk facts (dry_run default, refusals) are not buried.

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 4-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the definition covers selection, safety refusals, the safe default, and the counterpart set tool. Only the shape of success/refusal results is unaddressed, which is a minor omission given annotations already flag destructiveness.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema lacks: index originates from get_port_forwarding, port is the fallback selector, and dry_run being TRUE by default means a bare call is non-destructive. It leaves the protocol parameter's narrowing role to the schema alone.

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?

"Delete a port forwarding rule" names the verb and resource precisely, and the clause on index/port selection separates it from set_port_forwarding and get_port_forwarding. An agent can pick this tool without consulting 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use index sourced from get_port_forwarding, or fall back to port, and use set_port_forwarding to re-create. It stops short of stating when not to use this tool (e.g. to disable rather than delete), but the alternative-tool pointers are concrete.

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