delete_arm_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and covers the destructive nature ('Irreversible — no undo'), the confirmation requirement, and the UNIFI_PROTECT_MUTATIONS_ENABLED guard. It doesn't discuss cascading side effects or permission requirements, but the critical delete semantics are 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?

Four short lines, with the core action and the most important warning first. Parameter notes are one line each and contain only actionable details.

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 three-parameter destructive action, everything needed to call it correctly is present: endpoint, id source, confirmation flag, and the feature flag governing execution. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation isn't required and its absence doesn't hurt.

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 0%, and the description compensates fully: host's accepted formats (name/ID/composite MAC:numericId), arm_profile_id's required status and how to obtain it, and confirm's role plus the env-var gate. This is exactly the semantics missing from the schema.

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 opens with the verb and resource ('Delete an arm profile') and includes the HTTP endpoint, so an agent knows exactly what operation this is. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling operations like disable_arm or update_arm_profile, so it misses the top tier for sibling differentiation.

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?

It says deletion is irreversible and that confirm must be true, giving a clear precondition. It also tells the agent to source arm_profile_id from list_arm_profiles, but it never says when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., disable_arm or update_arm_profile).

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