opn_add_firewall_rule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully covers behavioral traits. It discloses auto-revert in 60 seconds unless confirmed, the MVC vs legacy distinction, parameter meanings including inverted logic, and the return structure (dict with revision, uuid, result). This provides complete transparency for a complex 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 well-structured: an introductory sentence, usage context, a critical distinction, then a detailed parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and the structure aids readability. Although lengthy, it is not wasteful and appropriately front-loads key 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?

Given 17 parameters, no schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: parameter details, behavioral traits (auto-revert), and return values. It is complete for the tool's complexity and provides all necessary context for correct 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates fully by explaining each of the 17 parameters, including defaults, valid values (e.g., action: 'pass', 'block', 'reject'), and examples (e.g., destination_port: '80', '1000-2000'). It adds meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying special cases like destination_not.

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 tool's purpose: 'Create a new MVC firewall filter rule with savepoint protection.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing MVC rules as opposed to legacy GUI rules.

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 this when you need to add a firewall rule' and mentions the auto-revert and confirmation process. It also notes the important distinction between MVC and legacy rules. However, it could provide more guidance on when not to use it or suggest alternative tools from the sibling list (e.g., opn_add_nat_rule).

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