firewall_record_delta

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool's purpose and usage context well but lacks details on behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or what 'recording' entails (e.g., storage, visibility, or impact on the classifier). The description doesn't contradict annotations (none provided), but it's incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by usage guidelines, then a structured Args/Returns section. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity (mutation with 5 parameters, no annotations), the description is mostly complete: it covers purpose, usage, parameters, and includes an output schema (returns status and delta_id). However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions or effects, which are important for a mutation tool. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but more context on the tool's impact would improve completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by listing all 5 parameters (file_path, code, similar_to, notes, language) and explaining their semantics briefly (e.g., 'Path to code file', 'Code string (alternative to file_path)'). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail constraints or interactions between parameters like file_path vs. code.

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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Record a near-miss variant') and resource ('to help sharpen the classifier'), distinguishing it from siblings like blacklisting or checking tools. It explains this is for legitimate use cases similar to blacklisted patterns or new dangerous pattern variants, providing precise differentiation.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this when code is similar to a blacklisted pattern but represents a legitimate use case, or when a new variant of a dangerous pattern is discovered.' This provides clear context and distinguishes it from alternatives like blacklisting or removal tools among siblings.

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