Update CDN firewall rule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description reinforces this with the [WRITE] tag and the PATCH method. It does not disclose whether unspecified fields are preserved or overwritten (partial vs full replace), which is the key behavioral question for a PATCH tool with a nested action_details object, but it adds enough beyond the annotations to clear the lower bar that annotations set.

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?

Three terse, front-loaded fragments with no filler; the method and precondition come first. The final sentence is too vague to fully earn its place, which keeps it off a 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?

A write tool with 8 parameters, 13% schema coverage, a nested object, and no output schema needs more description than this. The agent cannot tell what a successful update requires or returns, nor which fields are optional versus required beyond the two listed.

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 13%, so the description carries the burden—yet it only restates the rule_id requirement (already in the schema) and defers the other fields to 'create samples.' No meaning is given for name, note, action, filter_expr, is_enabled, or the action_details object, and by 13% coverage this is a real gap.

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+resource (PATCH a firewall rule) plus the exact endpoint path, so an agent can immediately tell it is the mutation counterpart to create_firewall_rule/delete_firewall_rule. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

'Requires exact rule_id' gives a precondition, but there is no guidance on when to update versus create/delete/reprioritize, and 'use documented fields from create samples' is a vague pointer rather than usable instruction. An agent gets no routing or exclusion logic.

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