move_firewall_policy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but only explains top-down matching. It omits whether before/after are mutually exclusive, what happens if neither is supplied, permission requirements, and whether the move is atomic or reversible.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and a useful clarifying clause appended; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. It leaves open the key edge cases an agent must resolve (before/after exclusivity, neither-specified behavior, VDOM defaulting) that the schema alone does not settle.

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%, so the four parameters are already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description reinforces that before/after are policy IDs but adds no mutual-exclusivity or conflict rules 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?

States a specific verb (move) and resource (firewall policy), and the parenthetical clarifies the domain semantics of ordering. It is distinguishable from update_firewall_policy or create_firewall_policy, though it does not name a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: reorder an existing policy relative to another. There is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, and no note about prerequisites such as needing the target policy to exist or how this differs from update_firewall_policy.

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