patch_firewall_policy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the operation is a partial update, implying PATCH semantics, but says nothing about side effects, merge/replace behavior, idempotency, permissions, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 succinct and well-organized: a one-sentence action followed by a compact parameter list. It earns each sentence's place and avoids redundancy with the schema except for the 'REQUIRED' marker on `policy_id`, which is acceptable emphasis.

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?

The description covers all four parameters with helpful format details, and an output schema exists so return-value documentation is not needed. However, it omits guidance on when to choose this partial-update tool over `update_firewall_policy`, and it does not describe what `fields` should contain beyond 'fields to update on the policy.'

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 does so by explaining `host` formats (name, ID, or MAC:numericId), `site` as name or ID, `policy_id` as obtainable from `list_firewall_policies`, and `fields` as the fields to update. The `fields` parameter remains vague about possible keys, preventing a 5.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Partially update a firewall policy by ID.' This clearly identifies what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling `update_firewall_policy`, so it lacks sibling differentiation required for a 5.

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 useful context about parameter formats and where to obtain `policy_id` from `list_firewall_policies`. However, it provides no guidance on when to use this partial-update tool versus the full `update_firewall_policy` sibling, and it does not mention any exclusions or alternative selection conditions.

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