delete_dfw_rule

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

The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explaining the impact: 'Irreversible and immediate: traffic it matched falls through to lower-priority rules or the policy default.' It also discloses the lack of a guard against deleting a rule while the policy has rules, adding meaningful behavioral context.

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 well structured and front-loaded with its purpose. It includes return format, side effects, usage guidance, and parameter details without extraneous text. Every sentence adds value.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers what the tool does, return values, irreversibility, consequences, alternatives, prerequisites, and parameter sources. Nothing critical is missing.

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%, but the description compensates fully with an Args section explaining each parameter: policy_id from list_dfw_policies, rule_id from list_dfw_rules, and target as an optional default. This is exactly what an agent needs to populate the parameters correctly.

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 clearly states 'Permanently delete one DFW rule from its parent security policy.' It uses a specific verb (delete) and resource (DFW rule), and is clearly distinguished from sibling tools like delete_dfw_policy (whole policy) and update_dfw_rule (disable instead).

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?

Explicit guidance is given: use update_dfw_rule with disabled=True when the rule may be needed back, and use delete_dfw_policy to remove a whole policy, noting that delete_dfw_policy refuses while rules remain whereas this tool does not. It also recommends confirming rule_id with list_dfw_rules and checking hits with get_dfw_rule_stats first.

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