delete_tier1_gateway

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. Description adds 'WARNING: This removes all attached segments and NAT rules' beyond the annotation, and includes '[WRITE]' marker. Provides behavioral context about cascading effects.

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?

Extremely concise: one-line purpose, warning, and parameter list. Front-loaded with key info. No unnecessary words. Each sentence earns its place.

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?

Given two-parameter delete tool with output schema (implied), description covers purpose, side effects, and parameter meaning. Lacks success/error feedback but adequate. Not mentioning prerequisites or return type is minor given output schema exists.

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 has 0% coverage (no parameter descriptions). Description compensates by explaining tier1_id as 'The Tier-1 gateway ID to delete' and target as 'Optional NSX Manager target name from config. Uses default if omitted.' Adds meaning beyond 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?

Description clearly states 'Delete a Tier-1 gateway', specifying the verb and resource. The name matches exactly. Distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_segment or delete_nat_rule by indicating it's the gateway itself.

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 warning about cascading deletes ('removes all attached segments and NAT rules') implies caution but does not explicitly state when to use or alternatives. Sibling tools for granular deletion are not mentioned. Adequate but not explicit.

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