post_fw_redir

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Create a PortForwardingConfig' and lists error codes, but does not mention required permissions, whether it is idempotent, what happens on duplicate, or the structure of the response. Given the lack of annotations, this is insufficient for behavioral transparency.

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 very short: one line for the action and one line for error codes. It is concise but arguably too terse, missing important context. It does not waste words, but could be more informative while remaining concise.

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 complexity of 11 parameters and presence of an output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain how this tool fits into the firewall rule management context, what the output schema contains (though not required per rules), or any prerequisites. The error codes list some failure modes but not all possible outcomes.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, with each parameter described. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what is in the schema. According to calibration, when schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3.

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 'Create a PortForwardingConfig', which is a specific verb+resource. Among siblings, get_fw_redir, put_fw_redir_redir_id, and delete_fw_redir_redir_id exist, but the description does not explicitly differentiate from them. However, 'Create' implies it is for creation, making the purpose clear but lacking sibling differentiation.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description only lists error codes ('noent', 'internal_error', 'exist') which hint at failure conditions but do not guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like put_fw_redir_redir_id for updates.

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