create_acl_rule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals local validation details, the exact controller error for an empty body, and that field validation is type-specific. It is strong but does not mention permissions, idempotency, or duplicate-rule behavior.

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 dense yet well-organized, front-loading the purpose, then parameter semantics, then routing guidance. Every sentence adds value—no filler or repetition.

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 tool with a nested object and zero schema descriptions, this covers all critical aspects: required parameters, validation behavior, type-specific shape, and alternatives. The output schema likely covers return values, so nothing essential is missing.

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%, yet the description compensates thoroughly. It defines host and site formats, notes the 'type' discriminator, and enumerates MAC-type rule fields (name, action, enabled, sourceFilter, networkIdFilter). This gives an agent enough to construct a valid call.

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 opens with 'Create a new ACL rule on a site,' using a specific verb, object, and target. It further distinguishes ACL rules from zone-based perimeter firewall rules, clearly separating this tool from create_firewall_policy.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool (intra-VLAN/inter-network L3 filtering) and when not to, directing to create_firewall_policy for zone-based rules. Also advises reading an existing rule with get_acl_rule to learn the exact shape, giving the agent a concrete next step.

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