VPS_createFirewallRuleV1

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses an important side effect: VMs with this firewall activated will lose sync and must be synced manually. This goes beyond basic function. However, it does not mention other behavioral traits like rate limits, immediate effect, or authentication requirements.

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 mostly concise with 4 sentences, front-loading the purpose. The last sentence ('Use this endpoint to add new security rules to firewalls') is slightly redundant with the first, but overall it is well-structured and to the point.

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 there is no output schema, the description should explain return values or confirmations, but it does not. It also does not mention the need to use VPS_syncFirewallV1 after creation, although it implies manual sync is required. For a medium-complexity tool, some gaps remain, making it moderately 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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already provides clear parameter semantics.

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 tool's purpose: 'Create new firewall rule for a specified firewall.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like VPS_createNewFirewallV1 (which creates the firewall itself) and VPS_deleteFirewallRuleV1 or VPS_updateFirewallRuleV1 by focusing on rule creation.

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 explains when to use the tool: to add accept rules for ports because the default firewall drops all incoming traffic. It also warns about VMs losing sync and needing manual sync. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., for modifying existing rules) or compare with VPS_updateFirewallRuleV1, but the context is clear enough.

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