update_firewall

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation), but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 extremely concise with just four words, front-loading the essential information. Every word earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and updatable fields without any redundant or unnecessary 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 mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks, parameter details beyond a partial list, or expected outcomes. Given the complexity of updating a firewall (which could affect network security), more context is needed.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'name, labels' which maps to two of the three parameters, but doesn't explain the 'id' parameter (required for identifying which firewall to update) or provide any details about format, constraints, or how labels should be structured. This leaves key parameters inadequately documented.

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 ('Update') and resource ('a firewall'), and specifies which fields can be updated ('name, labels'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_firewall' and 'delete_firewall' by focusing on modification rather than creation or deletion.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing firewall ID), compare it to similar tools like 'update_network' or 'update_server', or specify scenarios where it's appropriate versus not.

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