Update an existing rule within a firewall policy rule group by supplying policy, scope, group, and rule UUIDs with a JSON body to modify the rule configuration.
Update a rule inside a firewall policy rule group.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | JSON request body matching the target Security Director Cloud schema. | |
| scope | Yes | Rule scope: 'global' or 'zone'. | |
| rule_uuid | Yes | ||
| 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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only says 'Update a rule inside a firewall policy rule group.' It does not mention if the update is partial or full replacement, required permissions, error behaviors, or whether the call is destructive.
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, direct sentence that front-loads the action. It is concise with no wasted words, though it could benefit from additional structure or examples given the tool's complexity.
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 5 required parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the relationship between policy, group, and rule, nor does it describe the expected body format or return value. Sibling tools with similar complexity have more context.
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 only 40% (2/5 parameters described). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. For example, 'body' is described vaguely as 'JSON request body matching the target Security Director Cloud schema.' Without compensating for low coverage, the agent lacks clarity on what data to provide.
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 action (update) and resource (rule inside a firewall policy rule group), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'sdcloud_update_firewall_policy' and 'sdcloud_create_firewall_policy_rule_in_group'.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'sdcloud_update_firewall_policy_rule', or what prerequisites are needed (e.g., existence of policy, group). No exclusions or context are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.