add_firewall_rule

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the write is 'plain' and not gated, and explains server-side validation (port range ordering, leading to 400 error). It could mention idempotency or duplicate handling, but the provided details are sufficient.

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 concise and front-loaded: it begins with the core purpose, then covers prerequisites, parameter behavior, and validation rules in a logical order. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 absence of an output schema and 7 parameters, the description covers key aspects: authentication, parameter sources, required vs optional fields, and server constraints. It omits the return value or status codes, but this is acceptable for a creation tool.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains that id comes from list_firewalls/get_firewall, that omitting both portRangeMin/Max matches all ports, that remoteCidr restricts to a CIDR block, and provides an example. This enhances understanding beyond the schema's field names and types.

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 'Add' and the resource 'inbound/outbound rule to a cloud firewall', specifying the action precisely. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_firewall and delete_firewall_rule by focusing on rule addition.

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 context: it requires scope services:write, explains how to obtain the id (from list_firewalls/get_firewall), and notes that direction and protocol are required. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, slightly reducing clarity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.