Update a firewall policy by its UUID using a JSON request body that matches the Security Director Cloud schema.
Update a firewall policy by UUID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | JSON request body matching the target Security Director Cloud schema. | |
| policy_uuid | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Update', implying mutation, but lacks details on idempotency, error conditions, side effects (e.g., requiring deployment), or whether partial updates are supported.
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, but it is too minimal and fails to provide essential context. Conciseness should not come at the cost of completeness; this is under-specified.
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 the tool (2 parameters, one of which is a flexible object), no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is severely lacking. It does not explain what fields the body should contain, how to construct the UUID, or what the response looks like.
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 50% (body has a generic description). The tool description adds no information about the purpose or format of the parameters beyond what the schema states. For an update operation, the body parameter's schema is left open ('additionalProperties': true), requiring more guidance.
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?
Description clearly states the action (update) and resource (firewall policy) with identifier (UUID). However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling tool sdcloud_update_firewall_policy_rule, which updates a rule within a 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives for creating, listing, or deploying firewall policies. No prerequisites or context about required prior steps like fetching the current policy.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.