VPS_updateFirewallRuleV1

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses a critical behavioral trait: updating a rule causes VMs with that firewall to lose sync and require manual resync. This goes beyond the input schema and alerts the agent to a side effect.

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 sentences: the first states the action, the second warns about sync loss, and the third repeats the action. It is mostly concise and front-loaded, though the third sentence is redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does not explain return values. However, for a straightforward update tool, the warning about VMs losing sync is important context. The description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it could mention response expectations.

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% with clear descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'Firewall ID', 'protocol parameter', 'Port or port range, ex: 1024:2048'). The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 ('Update') and the resource ('a specific firewall rule from a specified firewall'). It directly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like VPS_createFirewallRuleV1 and VPS_deleteFirewallRuleV1 by specifying that it modifies existing rules.

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 says 'Use this endpoint to modify existing firewall rules,' providing a clear usage context. It also warns about the consequence of VMs losing sync, which guides when to use this tool (when you accept the need to resync). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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