opnsense_update_alias_entries

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing immediate effect without a savepoint, the risk of cutting off traffic, per-entry partial failure reporting, and error handling behavior. It also warns about the lack of rollback, which is critical for a destructive tool. Annotations show destructiveHint=true, and the description provides the concrete risks and implications.

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 well-organized with clear sections (main description, Args, Returns, Error Handling). It is detailed but every sentence adds value, from the immediate-effect warning to the explicit return schema. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool's destructive potential, the description fully covers when to use it, prerequisites, risks, return format (including JSON schema), and error handling. It also explains the one-at-a-time application and partial failure visibility, leaving no significant gaps for an AI agent to misuse the tool.

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 lists each parameter and its high-level meaning (name, action, entries, response_format), including constraints like 1-100 entries and add/delete actions, which partially overlaps with the schema's own descriptions. Since the schema coverage signal is 0%, the description compensates by clarifying the purpose and role of each parameter, though it doesn't detail patterns or examples beyond what's in the 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Add or remove entries in an alias table.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (search, get, find, etc.) and explicitly contrasts with rule edits, making it unambiguous that this is the mutation tool for alias entries.

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 explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'the right tool for blocking an address quickly, and the wrong tool for anything you have not verified.' It also states a prerequisite (OPNSENSE_ALLOW_WRITE=true) and contrasts with rule edits, which require an apply step.

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