delete_segment

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

The description richly discloses behavior beyond the destructiveHint annotation: it is irreversible, disconnects all attached VMs, requires a pre-check via get_segment, and returns a confirmation string or an error string rather than a dict. This fully prepares the agent for side effects and failure modes.

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 front-loaded with the operation and warning, then provides concise, high-value procedural steps. Every sentence earns its place, and the length is justified given the destructive nature of the operation.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description explicitly clarifies the return format (confirmation string or error string), which is useful. It covers prerequisites, irreversibility, user confirmation, and failure behavior, making it complete for a destructive tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic guidance for segment_id by instructing the agent to run get_segment first and check port_count, which goes beyond the schema's simple 'Segment ID to delete' explanation.

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: 'Delete a network segment.' It clearly differentiates from siblings like delete_tier1_gateway and get_segment by naming the target resource and the warning about attached VMs.

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 clear usage context: run get_segment first, check port_count, and confirm with the user before deleting. It explains the precondition (NSX refuses deletion when ports are attached) but does not explicitly compare against alternative tools for different deletion scenarios.

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