pve_firewall_options_set

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It covers key behaviors: mutation, dry-run default, risk levels, synchronous execution, no undo, and that the PLAN flags lockout risk. It also mentions optimistic locking via digest but notes it's not surfaced. However, it doesn't discuss authorization requirements or rate limits, which would be helpful for a mutation of this nature.

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 'MUTATION:' and scope information. It uses a clear, bullet-like structure with separate sentences for key behaviors. While it uses informal formatting (ellipsis), it remains efficient and readable without unnecessary words.

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 complexity (9 parameters, 0 required, output schema exists), the description is remarkably complete. It covers the mutation behavior, dry-run nature, risk levels, synchrony, lack of undo, and alternative tools. It also mentions the optimistic locking mechanism and that it's not surfaced. The output schema exists, so not describing return values in detail is acceptable.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains that `options` is a key-value bag for firewall options like policy_in, policy_out, etc.; that `delete` unsets keys; and that `confirm` defaults to false for dry-run. It also clarifies that `digest` is not surfaced by this tool. This adds useful context for selecting parameter values.

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 it's a mutation to set firewall options for a scope (cluster, node, guest). It lists specific options like policy_in/out, log levels, ebtables, and log_ratelimit. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by naming pve_firewall_options_get for reading and pve_firewall_set_enabled for toggling the enable flag.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: dry-run by default (PLAN shows current values and lockout risk), RISK_HIGH when enabling firewall or changing policy, synchronous with confirm=True returning a simple status. It also gives alternatives: 'To read current values first use pve_firewall_options_get; to toggle just the enable flag use the focused pve_firewall_set_enabled.' Additionally, it warns 'No UNDO — revert by setting the prior values.'

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