Move a NAT rule to a specified position in the firewall chain to control rule priority and execution order.
Moves a NAT rule to a different position in the chain.
Notes: rule_id: use the ID from list output e.g. "*1" or "0" destination: 0-based target position index
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device | No | ||
| rule_id | Yes | ||
| destination | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the basic safety profile. The description adds practical guidance about rule_id format but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error handling, effects of invalid positions, or whether the operation is reversible. This is adequate but not rich.
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 exceptionally concise: two sentences plus bullet-like notes for parameter semantics. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no filler or redundant information.
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 simple move operation with an output schema present, the description covers the essential parameter semantics and provides clear operational guidance. It omits edge-case behavior and does not describe the device parameter, but the overall completeness is strong for this tool's complexity.
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 carries the burden. It meaningfully explains rule_id (use ID from list output, e.g., '*1' or '0') and destination (0-based index), far beyond the raw schema. Device is not mentioned, but it is optional and appears to be a common parameter across sibling tools.
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 clearly states the action 'Moves a NAT rule to a different position in the chain' with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like move_filter_rule, getting NAT rules, or updating NAT rules.
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?
The description implies the tool is used for reordering NAT rules, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. It provides no comparative guidance relative to the many sibling tools, so usage context is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.