set_firewall_rule_enabled

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the permission requirement and the toggle nature but does not disclose side effects (e.g., immediate effect, reversibility, or state persistence). The description lacks behavioral details beyond the basic action.

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 with only two lines of prose plus a well-structured argument list. Every sentence earns its place, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by moving the permission requirement to the end.

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 no output schema and low complexity, the description covers the essential action and arguments. However, it lacks information about return values, error handling (e.g., invalid rule_id), and the tool's effect on the system's state beyond the immediate change.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It fully explains both `rule_id` (with example '*5') and `enabled` (true=enable, false=disable), adding clear meaning beyond the schema's minimal title and type.

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 (enable/disable) and the resource (a single firewall filter rule) in both Indonesian and English. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_firewall_rule and set_interface_enabled by specifying the exact operation and scope ('satu aturan firewall filter').

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 mentions a prerequisite (MIKROCLAW_ALLOW_WRITE=true) and explains the required arguments, but it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives (e.g., delete or create). Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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