create_firewall_zone_proxy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the zone payload is validated locally and that a missing field raises a ValueError naming the field, and that the zone is then verified against the live controller. This goes beyond a generic 'creates' statement, though it does not discuss permissions or failure details.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the action, and subsequent lines map cleanly to each parameter without extraneous prose.

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 three-parameter create operation with an output schema available, the description covers the parameter formats, the required nested zone payload, local validation behavior, and how to source networkIds. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it does not explain the connector-proxy context or what response to expect beyond the existing output schema.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains all three parameters: host accepts a console name, ID, or MAC:numericId composite; site accepts name or ID; zone must contain name and networkIds with their types. It also tells the agent where to get network IDs. Slight gap: it doesn't state whether additional zone properties are allowed or prohibited.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new firewall zone on a site via connector proxy.' This matches the tool name and cleanly separates it from sibling firewall-zone operations (list/get/update/delete_firewall_zone_proxy).

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 gives clear context for when to invoke it: creating a new zone rather than listing, fetching, updating, or deleting one. It also directs the agent to list_networks to obtain required networkIds. It does not explicitly state exclusions (e.g., use update_firewall_zone_proxy to modify an existing zone), so not a 5.

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