firewall_update_group

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context: firewall_group_id can be either a description or UUID, and ctx is used for change notifications. However, it does not disclose side effects, error conditions, permission requirements, or whether the operation is idempotent. The verb 'update' implies mutation, but details 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 compact and well structured with Args and Returns sections. Every line serves a purpose must. The only minor excess is the ctx argument which, while relevant, is not part of the input schema and might slightly distract.

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 simple description-update operation, the description covers the core purpose, parameters, and return. An output schema exists, so return format is presumably defined elsewhere. Missing are explicit statements about error handling and prerequisites (e.g., group must exist), which are more important given the lack of annotations.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains both required parameters: firewall_group_id (ID or human-readable description) and description (new description). The mention of ctx, though not in the schema, is a helpful detail. This is meaningful clarity beyond the bare 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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'Update a firewall group description.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like firewall_create_group, firewall_delete_group, and firewall_get_group. The name is self-consistent and the scoped action (description update) leaves no ambiguity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention whether the group must already exist, nor does it reference any sibling tools or preconditions. An agent is left to infer that this is for modifying an existing firewall group's description.

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