VPS_activateFirewallV1

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the behavioral constraint of one active firewall per VM, but does not explain what happens if a firewall is already active (error? replacement?), nor does it mention prerequisites or side effects.

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?

Three short sentences: purpose, constraint, and usage guidance. No extraneous words; all information is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

The tool is simple with 2 parameters and no output schema. The description covers basic purpose and a key constraint, but it omits whether the firewall must exist first, and what the outcome looks like (e.g., no output schema hinted). Adequate but not thorough.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with basic descriptions for 'firewallId' and 'virtualMachineId.' The description adds 'for a specified virtual machine' but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline 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?

The description clearly states the action: 'Activate a firewall for a specified virtual machine.' It includes a specific constraint ('Only one firewall can be active...') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like VPS_deactivateFirewallV1.

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 ends with 'Use this endpoint to apply firewall rules to VPS instances,' which directly tells when to use it. It mentions the one-firewall-per-VM constraint, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like VPS_syncFirewallV1.

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