hcloud_update_firewall

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutating profile is covered. The description adds the concurrency behavior (conflict error on parallel change), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about what the update affects, whether omitted fields are preserved, or that labels are replaced wholesale (that detail lives only in the schema).

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?

It is short, but 'Update a Firewall' is immediately restated as 'Update a [Firewall](#tag/firewalls),' which adds nothing but anchor markup. The one substantive sentence, about the conflict error, is buried at the end.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the essentials: the target resource, the ID requirement, and the concurrency caveat. The main remaining gap is not clarifying that the operation only touches name and labels and how unspecified fields behave.

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 only 50% schema description coverage and a nested body object, the description should compensate but instead adds zero parameter detail. It never mentions that only name and labels are updatable, nor that the labels map overwrites the existing set, leaving half the parameter surface undescribed.

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 ('Update a Firewall'), which clearly identifies the operation. However, it does not differentiate from close siblings such as hcloud_firewall_set_rules_action or hcloud_firewall_apply_to_resources_action, which the agent must disambiguate on its own.

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 notes a conflict error occurs when a parallel change is running, which is a useful operating condition but not a when-to-use rule. It gives no guidance on choosing this tool over hcloud_get_firewall, hcloud_delete_firewall, or the more specific firewall action tools.

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