hcl_remove_acl

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's job is to add behavioral detail — and it does: a backup is taken, 'scope and startup readback' occurs, and unrelated definitions and bindings remain protected. That safety-net and blast-radius information is genuinely beyond the annotations. The dry_run escape hatch, however, is never mentioned.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the protective behavior following. No filler, though the phrase 'Named types may be resolved from the actual config' is slightly opaque without knowing what 'types' refers to.

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 mutation taking 5 parameters (4 required, one nested) with no output schema, the description covers side effects and safety well but leaves the dry_run preview option and the topology/device addressing model unaddressed. An agent knows what happens to the config but not how to test it safely first.

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. It covers the identity of the ACL (numbered/named, resolved from live config) and hints at the binding interface, but acl_type, binding_direction, dry_run, project_path, topology and device are all left unexplained.

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 pairs a specific verb with a precise resource and scope: remove one exact numbered/named ACL plus an optional IPv4 binding. That scoping distinguishes it clearly from hcl_apply_acl and hcl_remove_nat in the sibling set, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'Remove' — an agent can infer this is the removal path rather than the apply path. There is no statement of preconditions, no 'when not to use', and no pointer to hcl_apply_acl for modification instead of removal.

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