update_firewall_rule

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

Annotations already carry idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: only passed arguments are modified, omitted ones are left alone, and the tool returns the rule as it stands afterward. No contradiction with 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?

The description is short, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence earns its place. It states what it does, the critical partial-update behavior, and the return value with zero 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?

Given the output schema exists, the annotations cover destructive/idempotent hints, and the schema's rule_id description points to list_firewall_rules, the description supplies the remaining essential behavior: partial updates and return value. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it could optionally mention value constraints for fields like chain or action.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 6%, the description carries a heavy burden. It adds the crucial semantic that omitted parameters are not modified, which clarifies the default-null schema fields. However, it does not explain any individual parameter values or constraints, leaving most of the 18 parameters self-documented only by name.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Change fields on an existing firewall rule.' This clearly distinguishes it from add_firewall_rule (create), remove_firewall_rule (delete), and list/get_firewall_rule (read). The plural 'fields' also separates it from the narrow set_firewall_rule_enabled sibling.

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 clear context for use: modifying an existing rule by updating only the fields you pass. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous. The lack of explicit sibling routing prevents a 5.

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