Modify a firewall policy rule group in either global or zone scope by submitting a JSON request body that matches the Security Director Cloud schema.
Update a rule group within a firewall policy scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | JSON request body matching the target Security Director Cloud schema. | |
| scope | Yes | Rule scope: 'global' or 'zone'. | |
| group_uuid | Yes | ||
| 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 are provided, and the description does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or update semantics (merge vs replace). The 'body' parameter's role is vague. Behavioral traits beyond the bare action are missing.
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, which is concise but underspecifies important details. It could be expanded with key context without becoming overly long.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, and the presence of a complex nested body parameter, the description is insufficient for an agent to confidently use this tool without additional context. It does not cover prerequisites, response format, or allowed operations.
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% (scope and body have descriptions; policy_uuid and group_uuid do not). The description adds no additional meaning to any parameter. The body parameter's description in schema is vague, and the description does not clarify what fields can be updated.
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 'Update' and the resource 'rule group within a firewall policy scope'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create or delete rule group, but could be more precise about what properties are updated.
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 vs alternatives. No prerequisites (e.g., group must exist) or conditions for use are mentioned. The description is purely a statement of action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.