Cluster Firewall Aliases

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat. It adds that create/update/delete are 'elevated', providing extra context about permission requirements not captured in annotations. No contradiction.

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 purpose, using a clear pipe-separated action list. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 multi-action tool, it lacks explicit mapping of required parameters to each action. It also doesn't mention return values or side effects beyond the actions, though annotations cover destructiveness. This is a notable gap for an agent needing to know exactly what to pass for each action.

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?

The schema already documents most parameters (80% coverage). The description ties actions to parameters implicitly (e.g., 'get alias by name' implies name parameter) but doesn't explicitly state which parameters are required for each action, leaving some ambiguity for an agent assembling calls.

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 it manages cluster firewall aliases and enumerates the specific actions (list, get, create, update, delete). The resource and operations are clear, distinguishing it from sibling tools that manage other firewall entities like rules or groups.

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?

Does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, but the name and description imply it's for alias management. No mention of when not to use or which alternative to prefer, leaving some ambiguity for an agent comparing sibling tools.

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