update_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, and it does disclose a genuinely non-obvious trait: only supplied fields change and list fields are replaced rather than appended. However, it omits permission requirements, reversibility, and any confirmation that the change was applied, which a mutation tool with no annotation coverage should ideally state.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action and the most important merge-semantics caveat front-loaded. Nothing needs to be cut.

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 21-parameter mutation tool with a nested free-form "extra" object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential merge behavior but leaves the agent guessing about return values and failure modes. It is adequate but not complete given the tool's complexity.

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%, and the schema documents all 21 parameters (including enums-by-convention like "accept or deny" and detach semantics with ''). The description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource ("Update a firewall policy") that cleanly distinguishes it from the create/delete/get/list/move siblings. It does not explicitly name the sibling boundaries, but the CRUD verb alone is unambiguous.

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 by the name and the partial-update semantics, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (policy must already exist), and no routing to alternatives like create_firewall_policy when the policy is absent.

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