delete_network

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. It only states 'Delete a network/VLAN' without elaborating on consequences such as irreversibility, cascading effects on associated objects, required permissions, or potential errors. While 'Delete' implies destructiveness, the description lacks any detail about the operation's side effects, making the behavior largely opaque. This is a significant gap for a mutating 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?

The description is compact and efficient. Two sentences deliver the purpose and parameter semantics without any filler. The key action is front-loaded, and parameter explanations are concise and directly useful. Every word earns its place.

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?

While an output schema exists (so return values need not be described), the description omits critical context for a destructive operation. It does not mention whether deletion is permanent, whether there are safety checks, or what happens to networks in active use. Given the complexity of network management and the lack of annotations, the description should provide more operational context to avoid accidental misuse. It only covers parameter sourcing, not the operation's broader implications.

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?

The input schema provides only type information with no descriptions. The description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: host (with specific formats), site (name or ID), and network_id (required and how to obtain it). This is substantial added meaning beyond the schema, which is nearly useless alone. The guidance to use list_networks for the ID is particularly valuable.

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 begins with a clear, specific verb and resource: 'Delete a network/VLAN.' This makes the tool's purpose immediately obvious and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_network, get_network, and update_network. The action and target are unambiguous.

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 description provides clear context on how to use the tool by explaining the required parameters and directing users to list_networks to obtain the network_id. It implies usage ('when you want to delete, use this'), but it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools for scenarios like conditional deletion or bulk deletion. This is a clear context without formal exclusions, matching a 4.

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