delete_tier1_gateway

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, and the description substantially expands on this by detailing exact side effects: removes attached segments and NAT rules, irreversibly deletes, removes the default locale-service first, explains the Policy API constraint, and clarifies error/return behavior. No contradiction with 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 most critical warning, then expands into prerequisites, API behavior, and return type. Every sentence contributes 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, non-idempotent write operation, the description covers side effects, irreversibility, required pre-checks, confirmation need, API-specific locale-service handling, and return format. The output schema is also present, so nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly 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 100%, with tier1_id described as 'Gateway ID to delete, as returned by list_tier1_gateways' and target explained as an override. The description adds no new parameter-level details beyond reinforcing that the same tier1_id should be used for pre-checks, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 begins with '[WRITE] Delete a Tier-1 gateway', clearly identifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes this from sibling create/update tools by emphasizing removal and irreversible side effects.

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?

The description gives clear pre-use guidance: run get_tier1_gateway and list_nat_rules on the same tier1_id first, and confirm with the user before deleting. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like delete_nat_rule or update_tier1_gateway, but the destructive context makes the appropriate usage clear.

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