Activate Firewall

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects and requirements, but it only says 'Activate a firewall on a VPS.' It does not mention whether the firewall must already exist, whether activation is reversible, or what happens if the firewall is already active. This is insufficient for a state-changing tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It could be more informative, but it is concise and well-structured for such a simple operation.

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?

The tool has only two simple parameters and no output schema, but the description omits essential context: it should mention that the firewall must already exist, contrast activation with deactivation or sync, or describe the expected state change. This is incomplete for an MCP agent.

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 input schema fully documents both parameters (firewall_id and vm_id) with descriptions, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Activate') and resource ('firewall on a VPS'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like vps_firewall_create or vps_firewall_deactivate. However, it lacks any additional context about what activation entails, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as vps_firewall_create, vps_firewall_sync, or vps_firewall_deactivate. The description merely restates the function without prerequisites or exclusions.

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