update_firewall_policy

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states partial update behavior and provides return values, but lacks disclosure of side effects (e.g., immediate traffic impact, need for commit, reversibility, dependency on existing objects). Examples help but do not fully cover behavioral traits.

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-structured: opening sentence, parameter list, return values, and examples. It is front-loaded with key behavior. Could be slightly more concise by removing redundant 'New' prefixes, but overall appropriate for the complexity.

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 tool's complexity (17 parameters, mutation, no annotations, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, partial update, parameter semantics, and return format. However, it lacks context on error conditions, prerequisites (policy must exist), parameter interactions, and scope (adom, package). Examples partially compensate but leave 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description includes a list of parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'New action - "accept" or "deny" (optional)'), adding meaning beyond the schema's parameter names and types. While some explanations are minimal (e.g., 'New log mode'), overall it provides adequate semantics for a tool with 17 parameters.

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 it updates an existing firewall policy with partial update semantics ('Only the specified fields will be updated'). The verb 'update' and resource 'firewall policy' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like create, delete, list, move, and search.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., policy must exist). However, the name and context make it clear it's for updating existing policies, and examples provide implicit guidance. Lacks explicit 'when-not' or alternative suggestions.

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