Delete a VPC network by its network ID to remove it from your cloud environment and free up resources.
Delete a VPC network by its network ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| location | No | Location/region code. | |
| project_id | No | Project ID. | |
| vpc_network_id | Yes | VPC Network ID to delete. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does not state whether deletion is irreversible, what permissions are required, what happens to dependent resources, or what the operation returns.
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?
One short sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the action and the identifying parameter. Appropriately sized for a simple delete operation.
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?
A destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema needs more context than this. Missing are irreversibility, required permissions, dependency handling, and any indication of the result, leaving the description inadequate for safe invocation.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all three parameters. The description only restates that deletion targets the network ID, adding no format, scope, or dependency meaning beyond 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?
States a specific verb (Delete) and resource (VPC network) plus the identifying parameter. It is clearly distinct from siblings like e2e_list_vpcs and e2e_create_vpc, but does not explicitly contrast itself with them.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of when not to use it. The destructive nature is implied only by the verb 'Delete'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.