updateFirewallSetting

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

The destructiveHint annotation already flags mutation, and the description adds the useful context that the payload should mirror getFirewallSetting's return shape. But it does not disclose whether the update fully replaces existing settings, whether omitted fields are reset, or any other destructive consequences beyond what the annotation implies.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, and the critical payload pattern without unnecessary words. Every clause adds value.

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 destructive nested-object update, the description gives enough to invoke correctly: it names the resource, points to the companion getter, and provides field examples. The destructive annotation covers the safety dimension, and the schema defines required parameters, so the main gap is ambiguity around merge-vs-replace semantics.

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 description reinforces the settings parameter by naming example fields (broadcastPing, sendRedirets, synCookies) and repeating the schema's 'same shape returned by getFirewallSetting' guidance. With schema description coverage at 50% and siteId left undescribed, the description partially compensates but does not fully explain the siteId parameter or the acceptable settings schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('firewall settings for a site'), and clarifies the exact payload shape by referencing getFirewallSetting. This clearly distinguishes it from the read-only sibling getFirewallSetting and other update tools like updateSiteSettings.

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 implies the correct workflow by telling the caller to pass the same shape returned by getFirewallSetting, which suggests fetching current settings first. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or mention any exclusions or preconditions beyond that shape hint.

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