attach_firewall

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses write nature, permission requirement, and a constraint (serverId must be in project). However, it does not mention idempotency, error conditions, or return value, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

Three sentences, each adding distinct value: the action, the permission and nature, and parameter sourcing. Front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words.

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?

For a simple write operation with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: action, permission, and parameter sourcing. Could mention error handling or return status, but not strictly necessary for a well-understood operation.

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 100% with parameter descriptions. The description largely repeats schema content, adding no new meaning beyond emphasizing 'must be in your project', which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Attach a cloud firewall to a cloud VM.'), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'detach_firewall' and 'create_firewall'.

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?

Provides clear context: requires scope services:write, notes it's not gated, specifies parameter sources (list_firewalls for id, project ownership for serverId). Does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tool set implies the opposite operation.

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