delete_ip_pool

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and not read-only, but the description adds crucial behavior: deletion is irreversible, consumers can no longer allocate, NSX rejects deletion if allocations are active, and the return value is a string rather than a dict. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, then adds necessary warnings and return-type details. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no filler.

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 tool, the description fully covers the essential context: irreversibility, failure conditions, required precheck, user confirmation, and return format. The annotations and schema cover the rest, so nothing important is missing.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, including pool_id and target descriptions. The description adds a small amount of extra meaning by linking pool_id to get_ip_pool_usage, but the schema does the primary documentation work.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently delete an IP address pool.' It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like create_ip_pool, list_ip_pools, and get_ip_pool_usage through its focus on 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?

The description gives explicit preconditions: run get_ip_pool_usage on the same pool_id first to confirm the pool is unused, and confirm with the user before deleting. This tells the agent exactly when and under what conditions to invoke the tool.

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