Sync firewall to all assigned VMs

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

The description discloses that the action applies updated firewall rules to all assigned VMs, which is a mutating operation consistent with readOnlyHint=false. It does not mention any side effects (e.g., temporary network impact), but it clearly states the action and its target. The behavior is transparent enough for the simple sync operation.

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 concise, consisting of three sentences that explain the purpose, the reason for sync, and the use case. No unnecessary information is included, and it is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It tells what the tool does, why it might be needed, and when to use it. The context is fully covered, with no missing critical information.

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 only parameter, firewallId, has a basic description 'Firewall ID' that matches its schema. The description does not add additional context beyond what the schema already provides, but it is clear and sufficient. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description does not enhance understanding further.

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: syncing firewall rules to all assigned VMs. It uses a specific verb 'sync' and identifies the resource (firewall) and target (all assigned VMs). It also explains why sync is needed, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides usage guidance: 'Use this endpoint to apply updated firewall rules to all VPS instances assigned to the firewall.' It clarifies the scenario (when rules have changed) and distinguishes this from syncing to a single VM (as implied by sibling tools like VPS_syncFirewallV1).

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