firewall_policy_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It only states 'update fields' without disclosing whether it performs a partial update, what happens if the policy does not exist, required permissions, or if the operation is destructive. Key behavioral traits are missing.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous information. It earns its place by being efficient and concise.

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?

Despite the existence of an output schema, the description is too brief for a mutation tool with 8 parameters (one required). It does not clarify the update semantics (e.g., only specified fields are updated, others unchanged), which leaves the agent guessing about behavioral details. The description is incomplete given the tool's complexity.

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% with all parameters already described in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Update fields of an existing IPv4 firewall policy' clearly states the verb (update) and resource (IPv4 firewall policy), and effectively differentiates from sibling tools like create, delete, get, list, etc.

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 implies usage for updating existing policies but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like firewall_policy_create or firewall_policy_delete. No when-not or alternative references are provided.

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