delete_dfw_policy

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description discloses the exact return payloads, the refusal condition, and the cleanup workflow. This adds valuable operational context not present in the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the operation type and action. Every sentence adds value—return values, refusal behavior, and argument explanations—without unnecessary filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description covers the return format, error shape, and a non-obvious prerequisite (active rules block deletion). This is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: 'policy_id: ID of the policy to delete' and 'target: Optional NSX Manager target from config.' This adds meaningful meaning beyond the bare 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?

The description starts with '[WRITE] Delete a DFW security policy,' using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list, get, create, and update by stating the exact action.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on a key precondition: 'Refuses if the policy still holds active rules: list them with list_dfw_rules and clear each with delete_dfw_rule first.' This names specific alternative tools and the order of operations, helping the agent decide when and how to use this tool.

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