set_firewall_rule_enabled

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

The annotations already carry idempotent and destructive hints; the description adds that the rule's position is preserved and that disabling is reversible, which is useful context beyond the schema. It does not fully explain what the destructive hint refers to in terms of live traffic impact, so it is not a perfect 5, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the action and then add the most important usage guidance. There is no repetition of the schema or filler content.

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 two-parameter toggle tool with annotations, an output schema, and a rule_id description in the schema, this is complete enough to invoke safely. The description provides the additional context (ordering, reversibility) that the structured fields do not.

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 schema already documents rule_id with a source and example, and the description clarifies the effect of the boolean enabled field: to toggle one rule on or off. This compensates for the missing enabled description and gives enough meaning to call the tool correctly.

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 opens with 'Enable or disable one firewall rule, leaving its position intact,' which names the specific operation, the target resource, and a distinguishing constraint. This clearly separates it from remove_firewall_rule, move_firewall_rule, and update_firewall_rule.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: when testing whether a rule is responsible for something, disabling is the reversible option and should be preferred over removing the rule. This gives a direct decision rule and names the main alternative (removal).

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