sophos_update_firewall_rule

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that it updates fields and returns an API response status dictionary, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations and schema already convey. No contradictions.

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 purpose line, usage line, parameter list, and return type. However, it is somewhat lengthy due to the repetitive Args section, which could be trimmed. It is adequate but not exceptionally concise.

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?

With 10 parameters, 1 required, and an output schema present, the description provides a clear purpose, usage guidance, and return description ('API response status dictionary'). It is reasonably complete, though it could briefly mention the relationship to sophos_update_firewall_rule_status for further clarity.

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 high (90%), so baseline is 3. The description's Args section repeats parameter info largely matching the schema, adding little extra meaning. It does not provide examples or clarifications beyond the schema descriptions.

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 configuration fields on an existing firewall rule, using a specific verb and resource. It lists what can be modified (logging, action, zones, etc.), distinguishing it from siblings like sophos_create_firewall_rule, sophos_delete_firewall_rule, and sophos_update_firewall_rule_status.

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 specifies when to use this tool: 'Use when modifying parameters such as logging, action, zones, host objects, or status on an existing security policy.' It provides context but does not explicitly exclude cases where it should not be used or mention alternatives, though the sibling list implies the distinction.

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