delete_segment

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

Discloses critical behavior beyond annotations: 'disconnects all attached VMs', 'Irreversible', and preconditions (NSX refuses if ports attached). Annotation destructiveHint=true is consistent and reinforced.

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?

Well-structured with warning, instructions, and Args list. Front-loaded with purpose and warning. Slightly verbose but every sentence adds value; could be tightened without losing information.

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?

Covers all essential aspects for a destructive tool: prerequisites (get_segment check), consequences (disconnects VMs, irreversible), return format, and parameter documentation. Complete given output schema existence and annotations.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, description fully compensates by detailing each parameter: segment_id's origin ('as returned by list_segments') and target's default behavior ('default if omitted'). Adds meaning beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states 'Delete a network segment' with a [WRITE] prefix, clearly identifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create_segment and delete_tier1_gateway by focusing on segment deletion.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: Run get_segment first to check port_count, confirm with user, and notes that NSX refuses deletion if ports are attached. Also describes return format (confirmation or error string).

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