update_firewall_policy

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full load, and it omits the critical question for a mutation: does policy_data replace the whole policy or merge into it, and are omitted fields preserved or cleared? It also omits permission/API-user prerequisites and reversibility. The brief Returns section ('Update status') is the only behavioral context offered.

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?

Front-loaded opening sentence followed by scoped Parameters and Returns sections; 'rules, addresses, services, and other settings' usefully sketches what a policy contains. The Returns block is thin filler ('Update status') and slightly dilutes focus.

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 mutation tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and a free-form nested object parameter, the description should cover replace-vs-merge semantics and failure modes. It does not, leaving an agent unable to predict the effect of a call beyond 'something changes.'

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 the baseline is 3 and the description's parameter list mostly restates the schema. It adds minor value with 'vdom: uses device default,' but leaves the nested policy_data object's expected keys and structure entirely unspecified anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb and resource plus the platform: 'Update an existing firewall policy on a FortiGate device.' The verb 'update' plus 'existing' implicitly separates it from create_firewall_policy and delete_firewall_policy, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Says nothing about when to prefer this over create_firewall_policy, move_firewall_policy, or update_cmdb_object, nor whether get_firewall_policy_detail should be called first to obtain a valid base configuration. 'Existing' is the only precondition hinted at.

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