Обновление правила firewall

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds the key behavioral detail that fields overwrite current values ('эти поля перезаписывают текущие значения правила'). However, it does not disclose permissions, error conditions, or effects on unspecified fields, leaving some ambiguity about the update semantics.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose and explicitly lists the relevant fields. No redundant information or filler.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the update behavior but does not mention the required identifiers (group_id, rule_id) or what the response returns. This is a moderate gap, especially since the tool requires four mandatory parameters, two of which are missing from the description.

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 parameters are documented. The description reiterates the required optionality of direction, protocol, port, cidr, and description, but adds minimal semantic value beyond the overwrite behavior. It omits the required identification parameters group_id and rule_id, which are present in the schema.

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 tool's function: 'Полностью обновляет правило firewall' (Fully updates the firewall rule). It specifies that the provided fields overwrite current values, distinguishing this update operation from create/delete/list siblings.

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 makes it clear this is for updating an existing rule, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives like create_firewall_rule or delete_firewall_rule. The context implies usage for modifications, which is sufficient for an agent to choose this tool over siblings.

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