Создание правила firewall

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so it is a create operation. The description confirms creation but fails to disclose that group_id is required, which is a critical prerequisite for the tool. No additional behavioral context such as idempotency or failure modes is given.

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 two short sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the main action and immediately covers key usage constraints.

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?

With 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal and covers some usage context but misses the required group_id param. It does not explain prerequisites like needing an existing firewall group, leaving gaps for an agent to infer.

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 marginal value by mentioning port/cidr for tcp/udp, but it repeats schema information and omits group_id from its list of required fields, potentially misleading an agent relying solely on the description.

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 it creates a new rule in a firewall group, using a specific verb ('Создаёт') and resource ('правило в группе firewall'). It distinguishes from sibling create_firewall_group by specifying the rule context.

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 provides some usage guidance by listing required direction and protocol, and noting port/cidr for tcp/udp. However, it omits group_id as a required field and does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use contexts.

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