VPS_activateFirewallV1

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey all behavioral traits. It mentions the constraint of one active firewall but does not disclose side effects (e.g., does activation overwrite an existing active firewall? Does it require specific permissions?). For a mutation endpoint, this is insufficient transparency.

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 three sentences long, with the first sentence stating purpose, the second adding a critical constraint, and the third essentially repeating the purpose. It is concise and front-loaded, though the third sentence could be merged. No wasted words.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core action and a key constraint. However, it lacks information on what happens if a firewall is already active or prerequisites (e.g., firewall and VM must exist). The description is adequate but has gaps.

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?

Both parameters (firewallId, virtualMachineId) are described in the input schema with clear, if minimal, descriptions ('Firewall ID', 'Virtual Machine ID'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, and schema coverage is 100%. Thus baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states 'Activate a firewall for a specified virtual machine' with verb and resource. It also notes the constraint that only one firewall can be active at a time, providing context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like VPS_deactivateFirewallV1 or VPS_syncFirewallV1, but the purpose is clear enough.

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 includes a key guideline: 'Only one firewall can be active for a virtual machine at a time,' which implies behavior when activating. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives like VPS_deactivateFirewallV1. This leaves the agent to infer usage context.

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