create_firewall_policy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the policy is not active until installed, explains the default values for parameters like action, nat, logtraffic, and indicates that policyid is optional and auto-assigned. It does not discuss permissions or other side effects, but covers the key behavioral trait.

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 well-organized with separate sections for Args, Returns, and an Example. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. While slightly long, every sentence provides value, and the structure aids readability.

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?

Given the complexity (15 parameters, 8 required) and the presence of an output schema description in the Returns section, the description is complete. It covers the creation process, defaults, optional parameters, and the response format, leaving no critical gaps.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description completely compensates by providing detailed explanations for all 15 parameters, including examples, defaults, and allowed values. This adds significant meaning beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool creates a new firewall policy, specifies the resource (policy in a package), and differentiates from siblings like update_firewall_policy, delete_firewall_policy, etc. The verb 'create' is specific and the scope is well-defined.

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 mentions that the policy won't be active until the package is installed, providing important usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_firewall_policy or delete_firewall_policy, though the distinction is implied.

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