Apply Firewall to Resources

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

Annotations already indicate mutability (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). The description adds no additional context about behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects, or permissions. It merely states the action without delving into what happens during application.

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 single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the essential action and resource, and contains no extraneous information.

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?

For a simple action with two well-documented parameters, the description is adequate but lacks completeness. It does not explain what happens if a resource already has the firewall applied, or the behavior of label selectors. Given the absence of an output schema, more context would be helpful for an AI agent to anticipate results.

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%, with both parameters already described ('id' and 'apply_to'). The description adds no new semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as value formats or constraints (e.g., label selector syntax). It provides a high-level overview but no extra detail.

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 action ('Apply'), the resource ('firewall'), and the scope ('to one or more servers or label selectors'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'hetzner_create_firewall' and 'hetzner_remove_firewall'.

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 implies usage when you have an existing firewall to assign, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify that the firewall must already exist or how it differs from 'hetzner_set_firewall_rules'.

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