panorama_remove_bgp_candidate

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

The [DESTRUCTIVE] prefix aligns with destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: two-phase safety, plan_id/plan_hash requirements, failure on unowned peers with disable_global, and candidate-only scope with no commit or push.

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?

Three tightly written sentences front-load the destructive warning and cover the core workflow, safety condition, and operational scope. Every sentence adds value with no filler.

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 10-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential lifecycle and safety guardrails. It conveys that the plan returns a removal plan and that apply needs plan_id/plan_hash, though the exact apply response shape is not described.

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 description adds key meaning for mode, plan_id, plan_hash, and disable_global beyond the schema, including the plan/apply sequence and the ownership-safety condition. Schema coverage is 70% and the schema itself provides useful parameter descriptions, so the description effectively supplements rather than carries everything.

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 operation ('two-phase removal of owned BGP resources') and clearly distinguishes it from related candidate tools like panorama_remove_ipsec_candidate and restoration/apply tools. The plan/apply mode detail makes the tool's role unmistakable.

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 usage context: plan first to get a removal plan, then apply using the returned plan_id and plan_hash, and optionally add disable_global. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the workflow guidance is strong.

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