Create CDN firewall rule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write and open-world nature is known. The description adds the HTTP method and endpoint path, plus the action enum values, but does not disclose permissions, side effects, idempotency, or conflict behavior.

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-loads the write method and endpoint before listing sample fields. 'Official FA samples' is cryptic, but the overall structure is efficient and not padded.

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?

This is a mutation tool with 7 parameters, 4 required, low schema coverage, no output schema, and minimal annotations. The description omits required-parameter guidance, detailed parameter semantics, side effects, and error or return behavior, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 only 14%, so the description must compensate. It lists several field names—name, note, is_enabled, action, action_details, filter_expr—and implies domain via the URL, but does not explain filter_expr syntax, action_details structure, required status, or the meaning of most fields.

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 [WRITE] tag and POST /domains/{domain}/firewall/rules endpoint make it clear this creates a firewall rule. The resource path is specific, though the description does not explicitly distinguish it from update_firewall_rule or delete_firewall_rule beyond the verb/path.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_firewall_rule, nor any prerequisites or conditions. The endpoint alone implies creation but does not tell the agent when creation is appropriate.

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