createFirewallAcl

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

The destructiveHint=true annotation already flags that this tool modifies state, and the description does not contradict it. The description adds purpose context but does not disclose potential traffic disruption or other side effects of creating the ACL rule; with the annotation present, this is acceptable but not additive.

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 sentences with no filler; the primary purpose is front-loaded and the second sentence supplies actionable setup guidance. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description covers the core rule-construction need via the listFirewallAcls pointer and identifies the tool's purpose. However, it leaves the optional siteId parameter unexplained, does not state what happens when siteId is omitted, and provides no hint about the return value or confirmation behavior for a create operation with nested objects.

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 only 50%: `rule` has a schema description but `siteId` does not. The description helps by directing the agent to listFirewallAcls for the expected rule shape, compensating for the free-form `rule` object, but it fails to explain the meaning or effect of `siteId`.

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?

States a specific action and resource ('Create a firewall ACL rule') plus its intended use ('inter-VLAN isolation or traffic control'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like listFirewallAcls and deleteFirewallAcl without needing to open their schemas.

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?

Explicitly directs the agent to call listFirewallAcls first to learn the expected rule shape, which is clear contextual guidance. It does not spell out exclusions or when to prefer other firewall tools, but the create-vs-read/delete contrast is evident from the sibling names.

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