sophos_create_nat_rule

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

Annotations indicate not readOnly, not idempotent, not destructive. The description adds that it creates a rule and returns a status dictionary, but does not disclose potential failure conditions or prerequisites beyond the schema.

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 well-structured with a summary, use-case, argument list, and return info. It is concise but could be slightly shorter by removing redundant parameter details already in schema.

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 the tool's purpose, use cases, parameters, and return format. With high schema coverage and annotations, it is fairly complete. Missing details about uniqueness constraints or error handling are minor gaps.

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 lists parameters with brief descriptions, adding minimal extra value (e.g., default values). Baseline 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 tool creates NAT/DNAT rules and lists specific use cases (port forwarding, SNAT, DNAT). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sophos_list_nat_rules or sophos_get_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 explicitly says 'Use when defining port forwarding, SNAT masquerading, or DNAT inbound translation rules', providing clear context. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool.

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