delete_nat_rule

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

With annotations already marking destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, the description adds crucial context: the deletion is irreversible, immediately stops traffic translation, and may break DNAT/SNAT connectivity. Also discloses the return format (confirmation or error string, not dict), going beyond 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: purpose first, then irreversible warning, then return type, then parameters. Every sentence carries meaningful information without redundancy.

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 mutation tool, it covers prerequisites, consequences, return value, and parameter semantics. The output schema exists but the description still clarifies the actual return string, making the tool fully self-contained.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description fully documents all three parameters: tier1_id identifies the owning gateway (with reference to list_tier1_gateways), rule_id identifies the rule (with reference to list_nat_rules), and target specifies the NSX Manager target with default behavior.

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?

Clearly identifies the action (permanently delete), the resource (NAT rule), and the scope (Tier-1 gateway's USER NAT section). Distinguishes from sibling tools like create_nat_rule and list_nat_rules.

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?

Explicitly instructs to run list_nat_rules first to confirm rule_id and review action/networks, and to confirm with the user before deleting. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and a prerequisite workflow.

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