delete_address_object

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the change is staged in candidate config and requires a separate 'commit' to activate. This is critical operational knowledge the agent would otherwise lack, and it aligns with (does not contradict) the destructive annotation.

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 sentences, zero filler. The [MODIFIES CONFIG] flag is front-loaded, the core action follows immediately, and the staging/commit caveat earns its place as essential behavioral information. Every word contributes.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the destructive nature, and the critical staging/commit behavior. The only minor gap is unaddressed edge behavior, such as what happens when the address object is referenced by an address group or what response to expect — but this is a small omission for a tool this simple.

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 both 'name' and 'firewall' already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but at full coverage the schema carries the burden adequately, 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?

"Deletes an address object" is a specific verb+resource statement that precisely names the action and target. The [MODIFIES CONFIG] prefix adds operational clarity, and the sibling set (add_address_object, get_address_objects, delete_address_group) makes it easy to distinguish from related tools.

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 implies its usage context — call this when an address object needs to be removed — but provides no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives. It does not tell the agent to prefer delete_address_group for groups or delete_service_object for services, leaving the routing decision to inference from sibling names.

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