toggle_fw_rule

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

Annotations are absent, so description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states that it enables/disables a rule, without disclosing side effects (e.g., effect on connections, admin requirements) or mutability. The apply parameter's existence is not mentioned here.

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?

Single sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded with key action and resource.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is too brief. It fails to mention that rule_uuid must come from fw_rules output (though included in schema), the optional apply parameter, or what the return value indicates. Lacks enough context for reliable usage.

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 100% – each parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra semantic value for parameters, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the action (enable or disable) and resource (firewall rule). The verb 'toggle' is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like mkfw_rule (create), rmfw_rule (delete), and set_fw_rule (configure).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (rule must already exist via fw_rules) or explain when to use set_fw_rule instead. This forces the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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