Delete firewall rule

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Any virtual machine that has this firewall activated will lose sync with the firewall and will have to be synced again manually.' This goes beyond the annotations by warning about the side effect on VMs, which is critical for an agent to consider before invoking.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence. The second sentence conveys an important side effect. The third sentence ('Use this endpoint to remove specific firewall rules.') is redundant with the first, adding minor noise. Nonetheless, the overall structure is efficient and easy to parse, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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 simple delete operation with two required parameters, the description is complete. It states the action, the exact scope (specific rule), and the critical side effect (VM sync loss). Annotations cover destructive behavior, and no output schema is needed. An agent has all necessary context to correctly invoke the tool and understand consequences. No significant gaps exist.

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 100%, with both parameters (ruleId and firewallId) having descriptions ('Firewall Rule ID' and 'Firewall ID'). The description does not add any extra meaning or context about the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage but adds no additional value.

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 clearly states 'Delete a specific firewall rule from a specified firewall,' specifying the exact verb and resource. It implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like VPS_deleteFirewallV1 (delete entire firewall) and VPS_replaceAllFirewallRulesInGroupV1 by emphasizing 'specific' rule deletion. The additional side-effect mention reinforces the tool's scope.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('Use this endpoint to remove specific firewall rules'), which directs the agent to this operation over similar ones. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it (e.g., for deleting the whole firewall), so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance but is sufficiently clear for the intended use case.

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