Remove exact NAT mappings and bindings from HCL topologies, optionally deleting unshared ACL or pool resources; reused operation keys return receipts without replaying device commands.
Remove exact NAT mappings, binding and optional unshared ACL/pool resources.
Reused operation keys return recorded receipts without replaying device commands.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dry_run | No | ||
| topology | Yes | ||
| parameters | Yes | ||
| project_path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: removal can include unshared ACL/pool resources, and reused operation keys return recorded receipts without replaying device commands. It still omits dry-run behavior and permission prerequisites, so it is not fully transparent.
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 two front-loaded sentences with little waste: first scope, then reuse semantics. It is appropriately concise, though the term 'binding' is slightly opaque.
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, nested-parameter tool with no output schema and no schema field descriptions, two sentences are insufficient. Key operational details such as dry-run behavior, parameter roles, and destructive scope are not covered enough for an agent to invoke it confidently.
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% and the schema is nested, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It only vaguely maps to a few fields with phrases like 'exact NAT mappings' and 'optional unshared ACL/pool resources,' but does not explain router, mode, interfaces, dry_run, operation_key, timeout, or static mappings.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: removing exact NAT mappings, plus related binding and optional ACL/pool resources. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as hcl_apply_nat or hcl_remove_acl.
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 this is the removal counterpart to NAT application, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It also does not clarify when to choose this over hcl_remove_acl for ACL cleanup.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.