move_firewall_policy

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

Without annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and does disclose important domain behavior: FortiGate evaluates top-down and first-match, and newly created policies are appended last. However, it omits mutation-specific context such as permissions required, failure behavior if reference_id is invalid, and whether reordering has 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 first sentence is front-loaded and precise, followed by useful evaluation-order context. The parameter and return lists are somewhat redundant given full schema coverage, but overall the description remains readable and appropriately sized.

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 covers the ordering rationale, all required parameters, optional vdom, and a brief return value. Since no output schema exists, the return explanation is minimal but sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool; deeper error semantics would be the main remaining gap.

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 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description repeats the same parameter meanings without adding format, constraints, or edge-case guidance beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: move a firewall policy before or after another policy in evaluation order. It also explains the FortiGate top-down evaluation context, which makes the tool's purpose distinct from general policy update or create siblings.

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 gives a clear use condition: newly created policies are appended at the bottom, so this tool should be used to position them. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as update_firewall_policy, but the intended workflow is clear.

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