waf_set_paranoia

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It mentions false positives as a consequence, but fails to disclose important behavioral traits such as whether the change is immediate, persistent, or affects all rules. The description is too high-level for a mutation tool.

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, no filler, front-loaded with the core action. Every word serves a purpose. Extremely concise for a single-parameter tool.

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?

Given the simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks context about the broader impact (e.g., immediate application, if it requires a restart) and does not provide guidance on selecting levels. Sibling tools are numerous, but the description doesn't help differentiate usage scenarios further.

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 100%: the single parameter 'level' has a clear description with minimum/maximum and effect. The tool description adds the trade-off between minimal rules and maximum security with false positives, but this largely repeats the schema info. Value added is marginal.

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 verb 'Set' and the resource 'CRS paranoia level' with a specific numeric range (1-4). It distinguishes from sibling tools (IP operations, rule enabling, etc.) by focusing on a unique configuration parameter.

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 context is clear: this tool adjusts the paranoia level, which affects security vs. false positives. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions. The usage is straightforward from the description.

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