delete_service_object

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the critical behavior that deletion is not immediately effective—it is staged in candidate config and only activated by 'commit.' This prevents the agent from assuming the delete is immediately applied, which is valuable 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 a single, compact sentence with the 'MODIFIES CONFIG' warning front-loaded and the activation requirement stated efficiently. There is no redundant or vague language.

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 two-parameter delete operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral workflow: modification, staging, and commit activation. The parameter details are fully handled by the schema, so no critical context 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage of both parameters, including descriptions for 'name' and 'firewall.' The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the complete schema coverage.

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: 'Deletes a service object.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_service_group and delete_address_object by naming the exact object type. The staging context adds useful clarity beyond the tool name.

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?

It provides clear operational context: deletion is staged in candidate config and requires 'commit' to activate, which tells the agent about the post-call workflow. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the resource-specific phrasing and sibling names make the appropriate use case sufficiently clear.

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