add_firewall_rule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It details operational behavior including default enablement ('enable: Enable rule immediately (default true)'), position in chain, and scope resolution. It could mention permissions or side effects, but the core behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-line summary, followed by a compact parameter list. Each parameter line is informative and not redundant. It is slightly long due to 13 parameters, but each line earns its place with useful detail or examples.

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 moderate complexity (13 parameters, 3 scope modes), the description is complete: it explains every parameter, required and optional, and defines scope fallback behavior. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return value. The description adequately covers how to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, yet the description provides detailed semantics for all 13 parameters, including accepted values, examples, and optionality. This adds significant value beyond the schema's bare types and defaults, especially for fields like dport, source, iface, and pos.

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 'Add a firewall rule to a VM/CT, node, or cluster' with a specific verb and target scope. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_firewall_rules and delete_firewall_rule by emphasizing the creation action and clarifying the three possible target levels.

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 clear usage context: if neither vmid nor node is provided, the rule applies at cluster level, and 'node' is ignored when vmid is set. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but no alternative add tool exists, so exclusions are not necessary.

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