bunny_manage_waf_custom_rule

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description's create/update/delete actions are consistent with those. The description adds useful context (the rule object structure and the purpose of custom WAF rules) butdoes not disclose consequences such as whether update replaces or merges the rule or whether delete is permanent/immediate.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. The rule-field enumeration is dense but earns its place given the opaque schema. Only the final sentence is mildly explanatory rather than functional, but it is brief and does not bloat the description.

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 destructive multi-action tool with a nested object and no output schema, the description covers the core operation and rule fields but omits whatthe tool returns on success, prerequisites (shield zone existence) and any propagation/permanence notes. The schema carries the action/parameter relationships, so this is adequate but with identifiable gapps.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the ract that the description enumerates the nested rule object fields (ruleName, ruleDescription, ruleConfiguration with phases, variables, operators, transformations, actionType) provides real value beyond the schema, since the rule parameter is an opaque additionalProperties: {} blob. It partially compensetes for the nested object'slack of structured 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?

The description states specific verbs (create, update, delete) and a precise resource (custom WAF rule on a shield zone), making the operation unambiguous. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like bunny_get_waf_rules (read-only) and bunny_manage_rate_limit_rule (a different ruletype), though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent would inferto use this tool when managing custom WAF rules on a shield zone, reinforcedby the explanatory sentence about blocking/allowing traffic based on request attributes. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternative guidance, no exclusion, and no mention that fetching rules should go through bunny_get_waf_rules.

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