Batch assign or unassign devices and sites for a NAT policy in one request. Supply the policy ID and matching JSON body to apply changes in Security Director Cloud.
Batch-assign or unassign devices/sites for a NAT policy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | JSON request body matching the target Security Director Cloud schema. | |
| policy_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'batch-assign or unassign' but does not specify idempotency, effect on existing assignments, whether validation is performed, or success/failure indicators. The body parameter's description is generic ('JSON request body matching target schema'), adding no behavioral insight.
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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core action. It is front-loaded and to the point, but could benefit from more detail without sacrificing brevity.
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 (batch operation, no output schema, 2 parameters, many siblings), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on request body structure, possible outcomes, error handling, and how it integrates with the NAT policy lifecycle (e.g., deployment needed). An agent may struggle to use it correctly.
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 50% (body has description, policy_id does not). The description adds nothing beyond the schema: it does not explain what the body must contain (e.g., list of device/site IDs, operation type) or how policy_id is used. A richer description could clarify parameter roles.
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 tool performs batch assign or unassign of devices/sites for a NAT policy. The verb 'batch-assign or unassign' combined with the resource 'devices/sites for a NAT policy' is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like sdcloud_list_nat_policy_assignments (list only) and sdcloud_deploy_nat_policy (deploy).
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs siblings (e.g., individual assignment tools, if they exist) or prerequisites (e.g., policy must exist, devices must be registered). The description does not mention any preconditions or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for proper selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.