VPS_createFirewallRuleV1

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

Although no annotations are provided, the description discloses key behavioral traits: the default 'drop all incoming traffic' policy, the need to add accept rules, and that VMs lose sync and must be manually synced. This adds significant context beyond the schema. Minor omission: no mention of immediate rule application or response format.

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 well-structured into three short paragraphs, each adding distinct value: purpose, default behavior, and sync consequence. It is concise but not overly terse, though the second paragraph could be integrated with the third for slightly better flow.

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 moderate complexity (5 required parameters, no output schema), the description covers essential context: creation purpose, default behavior, and side effect of sync loss. It does not describe the response structure or what happens if the rule is invalid, but it is largely sufficient for an agent to understand usage.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant detail beyond the schema's field descriptions (e.g., port format, protocol enum). It hints at the 'accept rule' purpose but does not elaborate on parameter constraints. The context about default drop behavior is helpful but not parameter-specific.

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 'Create new firewall rule for a specified firewall' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like VPS_deleteFirewallRuleV1 or VPS_updateFirewallRuleV1 by focusing solely on creation and adding context about default drop behavior and sync requirements.

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 explicitly states when to use: to add accept rules given the default drop policy. It also warns about the consequence of losing sync and needing manual re-sync, implying when not to use if immediate sync is required. However, no explicit alternative tools are mentioned.

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