remove_bridge_vlan

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that vlan_ids must match the stored value exactly because it is a list property — but does not say what happens when the value does not match (silent no-op vs. error) or whether the bridge entry itself is affected.

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?

Two short lines with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the note. The 'Notes:' block is slightly awkwardly formatted but costs almost nothing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values do not need explaining, and annotations cover the destructive/idempotent profile. However, for a destructive three-parameter tool with zero schema coverage on `bridge` and `device`, the definition is thinner than the tool's complexity warrants.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it only explains one of three parameters (vlan_ids exact-match semantics). The required `bridge` parameter and the optional `device` parameter are left entirely undefined in both schema and description, leaving a significant gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Removes an entry from the bridge VLAN table"), which cleanly separates it from list_bridge_vlans and add_bridge_vlan. It stops short of naming update_bridge_vlan as the sibling to use for modifying an existing entry, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no note about needing the entry to already exist, and no pointer to update_bridge_vlan for changing rather than deleting. The removal intent is implied by the verb only.

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