sophos_create_firewall_rule

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds that it creates a rule and returns a status dictionary, which is helpful but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., if dependencies like zones or networks don't exist, the creation might fail). No contradiction with 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: one sentence for purpose, one for usage, a clear Args list, and a Returns line. Every part is useful and well-organized.

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 description covers basic usage and return type, but given the complexity of creating a rule that references many existing objects (zones, networks, services), it lacks prerequisites and error scenarios. For example, it doesn't warn that referenced objects must exist. Still adequate for a tool with an output schema.

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 89%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description's Args section adds examples (e.g., ['LAN'], ['Any']) that are not in the schema, and clarifies defaults. This adds practical value beyond 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 'Create a new IPv4 firewall security rule.' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like sophos_update_firewall_rule and sophos_delete_firewall_rule by indicating use for new rules. The second sentence adds context about usage for network access control policies.

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 includes 'Use when defining new network access control policies between zones and host objects.' which provides some guidance, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like updating or deleting rules. The guidance is implicit given sibling tool names, but not direct.

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