update_filter_rule

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful behavior such as passing an empty string to clear optional fields, disclosing the behavior for unspecified fields. This goes beyond the structured annotations.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses bullet notes for key parameter formats. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Despite having an output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete for a tool with 21 parameters. It fails to explain the majority of parameters and lacks usage context, leaving the agent to guess meaning for fields like log_prefix or connection_nat_state.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only explains 4 of 21 parameters (rule_id, connection_state, limit, tcp_flags). Most parameters like chain, src_address, dst_address, and connection_nat_state have no added meaning beyond their names.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Updates an existing firewall filter rule') that precisely identifies the tool's function. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_filter_rule, remove_filter_rule, and update_nat_rule.

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 usage for existing rules ('Updates an existing firewall filter rule') but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. No alternative tools are referenced, so the guidance is minimal.

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