sophos_update_firewall

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

Annotations indicate non-destructive (destructiveHint=false) and open world (openWorldHint=true). Description adds the name length constraint, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose what happens to unspecified attributes or the effect of partial updates.

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?

Single sentence with a note—minimal, direct, and no filler.

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?

No output schema; description omits return semantics. While input is clear, an agent may need to know the response format (e.g., success code, updated object). Annotations provide some context but not enough for full completeness.

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 has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds the name character limit (3–40), which is not in the schema, slightly improving clarity. Latitude/longitude dependence is weakly implied but already in schema.

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?

Clearly states it updates a firewall's name and/or geolocation. Notes a specific character constraint, distinguishing it from sibling tools that manage firewalls in other ways (e.g., list, approve, get).

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 when to use (to update a firewall) but offers no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. Siblings include read and other update operations, but no comparison is provided.

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