opnsense_nat_source_update

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

The description adds 'DESTRUCTIVE' as a warning and explains the round-trip behavior, which are useful traits. However, without annotations, it fails to mention the required 'confirm' field or clarify what 'DESTRUCTIVE' means in context (e.g., whether it destroys anything beyond the rule state).

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 extremely concise: three sentences that convey the main action, behavior (round-trip override), and a warning. No redundant words; every sentence earns its place.

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's complexity (20 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is too minimal. It does not explain the round-trip mechanism, required confirmation, error handling, or return values. Sibling tools are not referenced for guidance.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 5%, the description should compensate, but it only generically says 'overrides explicitly provided fields' without explaining any of the 20 parameters. Most parameters remain semantically opaque despite being self-explanatory in many cases.

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 updates an existing Source NAT rule, which is specific and distinct from siblings like add, delete, get, list, and toggle. The mention of round-tripping and overriding only provided fields adds precision.

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 implies use when an existing rule needs modification, but it does not explicitly specify prerequisites, when to use alternatives, or when not to use this tool. No exclusions or direct sibling comparisons are provided.

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