Deploy a NAT policy to assigned devices using its policy ID. Apply address translation rules to managed devices to enforce network changes.
Deploy a single NAT policy to its assigned devices.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| policy_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is destructive, idempotent, or what happens if the policy is already deployed. Minimal 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 a single 8-word sentence, efficient with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action. Slight lack of structure (no line breaks) but appropriate for its 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?
With no output schema, no annotations, and only one parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., success, job status), error scenarios, or relationship to deployment jobs. For a simple tool, more context is needed for effective use.
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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no information about the 'policy_id' parameter beyond its name. The parameter's type, format, or source is not explained. Baseline of 3 would require coverage; here description fails to compensate.
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 deploys a single NAT policy to its assigned devices, using the verb 'deploy' and specific resource 'NAT policy'. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'cleanup' or 'selective_deploy', but does not explicitly differentiate from similar deploy tools like 'sdcloud_deploy_firewall_policy'.
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 versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., devices must be assigned), or situations where it is inappropriate. The description lacks any usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.