delete_port_forwarding

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuine context with 'Two-phase', signaling a deliberate confirmation protocol, but it never explains what the phases are, what confirm does, or how expected_etag affects the operation. That leaves key mutation behavior undisclosed.

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 definition is front-loaded and very short, with no wasted sentences. However, the fragment 'Two-phase.' is terse to the point of being cryptic, so brevity comes at the cost of usable detail.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a destructive five-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the description omits the confirmation flow, concurrency semantics via expected_etag, and any guidance on choosing the two deletion modes safely.

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 carry parameter meaning. It explains the name-vs-external_port+protocol selector, which is useful, but leaves confirm and expected_etag completely unexplained despite both being central to a two-phase destructive operation.

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 and resource ('Delete a port forward') and disambiguates the two targeting modes: by name or by external port plus protocol. The sibling list contains list_port_forwarding, add_port_forwarding, and set_port_forwarding_enabled, so the delete action is distinguishable, but the description never names an alternative to route against.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The phrase 'Two-phase' hints that a confirmation flow exists but does not tell the agent when or how to invoke it, nor does it explain prerequisites such as required permissions or expected_etag.

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