update_firewall_state_size

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond restating the operation; it does not mention apply_immediately semantics, defaultstatesize behavior, or potential side effects. With annotations present and no contradiction, this is acceptable but not enhanced.

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 a single sentence with no filler, effectively front-loading the purpose. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a simple update tool.

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 low complexity, the schema provides rich parameter descriptions, and annotations specify idempotence and non-destructiveness, the description is sufficient to inform an agent. It does not mention the related get_firewall_state_size or the apply_immediately default, but these are not essential given the schema and output schema. Overall, it is adequately complete.

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%, as all three parameters (maximumstates, defaultstatesize, apply_immediately) have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the specific verb 'Update' and resource 'firewall state table size', clearly identifying the action and target. It distinguishes from sibling get_firewall_state_size by implying a mutation operation, leaving no ambiguity.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The verb 'Update' implies it should be used to modify the firewall state table size, while the sibling get_firewall_state_size handles reads, but this is only implied, not stated.

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