opnsense_nat_source_add

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is destructive and requires explicit confirmation, which is good. However, it does not elaborate on what 'destructive' entails (e.g., overwriting existing config, immediate firewall impact), nor does it describe the behavior if confirm is false or the result after calling apply.

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: two sentences that front-load the purpose and include a critical post-action instruction and a warning. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 the tool has 19 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate for a basic add operation. It covers the core purpose and the necessary activation step. However, it lacks examples, expected return values, or guidance on parameter combinations, which would be helpful given the high parameter count.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 19 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions the post-apply requirement but does not clarify default values or relationships between parameters.

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: 'Add a new Source NAT (outbound) rule.' It uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('Source NAT rule'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like opnsense_nat_source_update and opnsense_nat_apply by mentioning the need to call apply afterwards.

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 clear guidance: when adding a new rule, and that a follow-up call to opnsense_nat_apply is required. It also warns of destructiveness and the need for explicit confirmation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus update or other alternatives, but the context of adding is clear.

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