sophos_update_nat_rule

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false. The description adds value by enumerating the updateable fields (status, translated_source, etc.) and stating the return type (API response dictionary). This goes beyond 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 a well-structured docstring with clear sections: purpose, usage, args, returns. It is concise (8 lines) and front-loaded with the main purpose, with no wasted sentences.

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 moderate complexity (6 parameters, optional fields) and the presence of annotations and output schema, the description is thorough. It explains what can be updated, when to use, arguments, and return value, leaving no significant 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 coverage is high (83%) with most parameters described. The description's docstring replicates parameter descriptions with minimal added context. The 'client' parameter is described as 'Optional SophosFirewallClient instance' in docstring but not in schema, providing marginal value.

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 'Update fields on an existing NAT rule' with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools (list, get, create, delete) by focusing on updating an existing 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 updating status or target translation parameters on an existing NAT or port-forwarding rule', providing clear context on when to use. It does not explicitly list alternatives but implies other tools for other operations.

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