Update an existing NAT rule inside a policy group by supplying policy, group, and rule IDs along with a JSON request body that matches the target schema.
Update a rule inside a NAT policy rule group.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | JSON request body matching the target Security Director Cloud schema. | |
| rule_id | Yes | ||
| group_id | Yes | ||
| 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 fully disclose behavioral traits. It simply says 'Update', which is obvious from the name. It does not mention whether the update is partial or full, any side effects, required permissions, or what happens if the rule doesn't exist. This is insufficient for an AI agent.
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 conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It is well-structured and front-loaded. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices helpful detail, which slightly reduces the score from a perfect 5.
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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, many siblings), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the role of each parameter, the expected format of the body, what the update returns, or necessary prerequisites (e.g., existing policy and group). An AI agent would struggle to use this tool 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 only 25%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. The 'body' parameter is vaguely described as 'JSON request body matching the target Security Director Cloud schema', and the other three parameters have no description. The tool definition fails to clarify what each parameter represents or how to construct the body.
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 the specific resource ('a rule inside a NAT policy rule group'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'update_nat_policy_rule' (without group) and other operations (create/delete/list) in the same context.
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, nor are there any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The agent receives no help in deciding whether to use this tool or another, such as creating the rule first or using a different update method.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.