configurar_acl

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it delivers: it emphasizes the apply action ('LA APLICA'), warns that an unapplied ACL blocks nothing and would register rules with no effect (including that the function itself warns in the response), and explains the implicit 'deny ip any any' at the end of every ACL and its blocking consequence. This is thorough transparency for a mutating tool with real network side effects.

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 the single-sentence purpose, then organized into parameter bullets, an IMPORTANT callout, an implicit-deny note, and one realistic example. It is long but every section earns its keep given zero schema coverage and the tool's complexity (rule syntax, direction semantics, silent-failure trap); the parameter bullet section could arguably be slimmed but nothing is redundant.

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?

This is a high-complexity tool (rule formatting, number ranges, direction, implicit deny) with zero schema coverage and zero annotations; the output schema at least covers return values. The description covers purpose, all critical semantics, the no-effect trap, the implicit deny, and a full guest-network example. The only gap is tipo never explained in the body and the acl_number/tipo mapping not made explicit, which is minor against an otherwise complete definition.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does for most parameters: acl_number (range meaning), reglas (format plus concrete standard/extended examples), interfaz (target with examples), and direccion (in/out semantics). The gaps are tipo and router, which appear only in the example call (tipo='extended', 'CORE-SW') rather than being explained in the body; the acl_number-to-tipo correspondence is implied but never stated.

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 first sentence states a specific verb-resource pair: 'Crea una ACL en un router o switch L3' and adds the dual behavior (creates AND applies if an interface is given). This cleanly distinguishes it from the many sibling config tools (configurar_vlan, configurar_nat, configurar_ospf) which are each scoped to a different technology. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 gives strong when/how-to guidance: acl_number ranges (1-99 vs 100-199), the rule format without the 'access-list N' prefix with standard and extended examples, interface naming examples ('GigabitEthernet0/0', 'Vlan50'), and the in/out direction semantics. It explains when to use 'in' (blocking a source VLAN). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives for exclusion, but the usage is clearly scoped to ACL management by domain.

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