move_firewall_rule

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

Annotations already declare the operation as non-read-only and non-destructive; the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action. It does not mention side effects on other rules, whether changes require an explicit apply step, or what happens to rule ordering indices.

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 concise sentence that directly states the tool's function with no wasted words; front-loaded and clear.

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?

For a simple reorder tool with complete parameter documentation and safety annotations, the description covers the core purpose. Minor gap: doesn't mention that changes may need to be applied or that rule position is zero-based (though schema covers this). Overall adequate.

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?

Input schema provides detailed descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), including rule_id as array index and new_position semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema offers.

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 uses a specific verb ('Move') with a clear resource ('firewall rule') and target ('new position in rule order'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_firewall_rule or delete_firewall_rule.

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 implies the tool is for reordering firewall rules, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or mention prerequisites like needing to retrieve rule_id from search_firewall_rules (though schema does). No exclusions or alternative guidance.

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