remove_ppp_secret

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so richly: it discloses the write-guard (MIKROTIK_ALLOW_WRITE), the dry-run/confirm pattern, that it never guesses on ambiguity, that it fails clearly when no match exists, and that the secret's password is redacted from the preview. These are exactly the traits an agent needs beyond the schema.

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?

Front-loads the action, then the guard, then the confirm workflow, then the error/redaction behavior. Information-dense but every clause earns its place; only `device_name` is left unaddressed, and the wording is slightly technical but not bloated.

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 guarded destructive write tool with 3 parameters, this is complete: it covers the authorization prerequisite, the safe-preview-then-confirm loop, both error modes, and the password-redaction guarantee. An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be repeated.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains `name` as the removal key, `confirm` as the commit switch with its default behavior (preview vs. actual removal), which covers the meaning of three of the parameters; `device_name` is implied as the target device but not elaborated.

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+resource ('Remove a PPP/PPPoE secret') and maps it to the underlying RouterOS command `/ppp/secret remove`, with the removal key (`name`). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling `add_ppp_secret` and from the read tool `ppp_secrets`.

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 states when the tool can run (server must have MIKROTIK_ALLOW_WRITE=true or it is blocked entirely), and prescribes a two-step workflow: first call with confirm=False for a preview, then again with confirm=True to commit. It also names the error conditions (ResourceNotFoundError, AmbiguousResourceError).

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