opn_add_alias

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It states aliases are 'metadata definitions that only affect traffic when referenced by a firewall rule' and that no savepoint protection is needed. This discloses non-destructive behavior. However, it does not mention authentication or other potential side effects.

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 clear lead sentence, usage guidance, and a parameter list. It is not overly verbose, though the parameter explanation could be slightly more concise. Still, every sentence serves a purpose.

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 description is complete for the tool's complexity. It explains the tool's purpose, parameter details, return format (dict with result and uuid), and behavioral notes (no savepoint). With output schema present and no annotations needed, the description fully enables correct agent invocation.

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 0%, but the description explains all four parameters in detail. It provides constraints (e.g., name: alphanumeric and underscores only), examples for content (GeoIP country codes like 'DE\nFR\nNL'), and enumerates alias_type options. This adds significant value beyond the basic schema.

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 'Create a new firewall alias' with specific verb and resource. It lists the types of aliases (IP list, network group, port group, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list, delete, update, and toggle.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use this when you need to create a reusable alias for use in firewall rules.' Also notes that savepoint protection is not required. While it doesn't explicitly exclude other use cases, the context makes it clear when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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