pve_firewall_rule_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly marks as 'MUTATION', states synchronous execution, and describes the dry-run/confirm pattern. The warning about connectivity lockout is a important behavioral trait. It could mention error states or prerequisites, but overall provides solid transparency for a mutation tool.

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: 3 sentences covering purpose, dry-run/confirm mechanism, and a warning. It is front-loaded with the mutation label and purpose. Could be improved with bullet points for parameters, but for the limited scope it is efficient and not verbose.

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 tool has 15 parameters, many optional, with very low schema description coverage. The description does not explain key parameters (e.g., dest, dport, source) or the effect of defaults. Without annotations or additional schema descriptions, an agent would struggle to invoke the tool correctly. The output schema exists but unknown content; still, the input parameter documentation is inadequate.

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 only 7% (only the 'proximo_target' parameter has a description). The description mentions 'scope, direction, action, and key address/port fields' but does not explain individual parameters like dest, dport, proto, source, or comment. With such low schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not, leaving most parameters opaque.

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 is a mutation to 'add a new firewall rule.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pve_firewall_rule_remove (removes rules) and pve_firewall_rule_update (updates rules). The verb 'add' and resource 'firewall rule' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explains the dry-run default and the need to re-call with confirm=True to execute. It also warns about connectivity lockout with DROP/REJECT. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., pve_firewall_rule_update for existing rules). The guidance is clear but lacks exclusions or explicit sibling differentiation.

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