Replace all firewall rules in group

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and non-read-only behavior, so the description adds valuable context beyond them: atomicity of the replacement, the need for VM synchronization after replacing rules, and the role of the 'sync' parameter. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure that helps an agent understand side effects and follow-up actions.

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 compact and well-structured: the first sentence states the core purpose and atomicity, the second sentence covers the important synchronization caveat. Every sentence earns its place, and no redundant information is included.

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?

For a destructive replacement operation with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main things an agent needs: what the tool does, how it differs from individual rule operations, the requirement to sync VMs afterward, and how to trigger sync via the parameter. The annotations cover the destructive and idempotent traits, so nothing critical is missing.

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 adds useful semantic meaning by clarifying the 'rules' array is the complete replacement set and by explaining the operational effect of the 'sync' parameter ('trigger synchronization immediately'). This goes beyond the schema's terse parameter descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Replaces all firewall rules within a specified firewall group' with the provided set. It further distinguishes itself from incremental rule management by noting it performs the replacement 'in a single atomic operation, instead of creating or deleting rules one by one.' This clearly separates it from sibling tools like VPS_createFirewallRuleV1 and VPS_deleteFirewallRuleV1.

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 gives clear context for use: replace an entire rule set atomically rather than mutating rules individually. It also explains the synchronization requirement and how the 'sync' parameter relates to it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use this tool, so it falls short of full exclusion guidance.

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