Reprioritize CDN firewall rules

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

Annotations only state readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description carries the burden of disclosure. It adds the [WRITE] marker and the endpoint, but says nothing about what gets reordered, whether the operation is destructive to existing priorities, or permission requirements. The vague 'body schema details may come from API portal' leaves behavior largely opaque.

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?

Two sentences, reasonably tight, with the method/path front-loaded. The parenthetical about the API portal is filler that could be trimmed, but nothing is egregiously verbose.

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?

A write operation with no output schema, no annotations covering safety, a 50%-covered schema, and an unspecified body object. The description should specify the priority payload structure and any constraints, but defers to external docs, leaving the agent under-informed for a mutation call.

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 50% and the description gives no parameter detail. The body parameter is a free-form object with no property definitions at all, and the description only says to pass the payload 'exactly as required by the API' without describing its shape or the priority semantics. This fails to compensate for a low-coverage, opaque 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?

States a specific verb (reprioritize) and resource (CDN firewall rules), and the HTTP method and path pin down the operation unambiguously. It is distinguishable from sibling firewall tools (create/update/delete/list) by the reprioritize verb, though it does not name a sibling directly.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus get_firewall_rule, update_firewall_rule, or list_firewall_rules, nor any prerequisite (e.g., that rules must already exist). The only contextual hint is the [WRITE] tag. An agent must infer the use case.

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