remove_vlan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and succeeds: it declares it is a WRITE tool, names the environment guard, describes the preview/commit safety pattern, and the failure mode when `name` matches nothing. This is the behavior an agent needs before calling 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, front-loaded with the action and its guard, then the workflow, then the error behavior. Every sentence contributes, though the formatting could be slightly tighter.

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 tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers safety, workflow, and error handling. The main omission is any mention of `device_name`'s role in targeting the correct device.

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 all three parameters are undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It explains `name` (the target VLAN), `confirm` (default false, controls preview vs. commit), and implies `device_name` selects the device, but the semantics of `device_name` are never made explicit.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Remove a VLAN interface') and even names the underlying RouterOS command (`/interface/vlan remove`). It is trivially distinguishable from siblings like add_vlan or list_vlans.

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 gives explicit when/when-not conditions: the tool is blocked unless MIKROTIK_ALLOW_WRITE=true, and it prescribes a two-step workflow (confirm=False for preview, confirm=True to commit). No inference is required from the agent.

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