Update WAF mode

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, and the description's [WRITE] tag is consistent with that. It adds useful context on the exact PATCH path and the docs-vs-SDK discrepancy, but does not explain the effect of switching WAF mode (traffic blocking behavior) or any permission requirements.

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 with no filler and the write tag plus endpoint front-loaded. The phrase 'Offline FA / EN WAF docs' is cryptic internal jargon that costs a little clarity.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the endpoint and value set but omits the practical effects of the change and any permission or propagation details. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It lists mode values off|detect|protect (duplicating the schema enum) and implies domain maps to the {domain} path segment, but never explains what each mode actually does to traffic. This is partial compensation only.

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 names a specific verb (update/PATCH), resource (WAF mode on a domain), and target endpoint (/domains/{domain}/waf), so the action is unambiguous. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from the close siblings update_firewall_settings or update_ddos_protection_mode, which an agent might otherwise confuse it with.

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 the other firewall/DDoS mode tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The note about the Go SDK path is a documentation clarification, not usage guidance.

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