cloud_update_firewall

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

The description only states 'Update,' implying a mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it overwrites or merges labels, requires specific permissions, or is destructive. With no annotations, this is insufficient 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 very short (6 words) and front-loaded, with no redundant information. However, it is slightly too terse and could include more detail without significant length increase.

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 3 parameters and sibling tools, the description lacks completeness. It does not mention that only specified fields are updated, the impact of omitting optional parameters, or the response format (though output schema exists). For a tool with moderate complexity, this is insufficient.

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?

The description does not add meaning beyond the parameter names (firewall_id, name, labels). With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but only lists the fields without explaining their format, constraints, or behavior (e.g., partial vs full update).

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 specifies 'Update a firewall's name or labels,' clearly indicating the action (update) and the resource (firewall) with specific fields. This differentiates it from sibling tools like cloud_create_firewall, cloud_delete_firewall, and cloud_set_firewall_rules.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as using cloud_set_firewall_rules for rule updates. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., firewall must exist) or constraints.

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