set_firewall_policy_ordering

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses critical API behavior: zone IDs are required query parameters, are NOT read from the ordering body, and omitting them returns HTTP 400. It also clarifies that the operation applies to a single zone pair, which prevents misuse. It does not discuss permissions or reversibility, but the core mutation semantics are clearly communicated.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then organized into a clear parameter-by-parameter breakdown. Every sentence conveys necessary operational information, with no filler or repetition beyond the purposeful 'Same requirement' shorthand.

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 five required parameters, the API-specific query parameter requirement, error behavior, and the relationship to get_firewall_policy_ordering. The exact internal structure of the ordering object is left somewhat open, but the reference to reading the same zone pair gives the agent a practical path to discover the expected shape. Given the output schema exists, return-value documentation is not needed.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage and only provides types. The description fully compensates by explaining exactly what each parameter means: host and site formats, UUIDs for zone IDs, the required query-parameter behavior, and what the ordering object represents.

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 first sentence, 'Set the ordering of firewall policies within one source/destination zone pair,' names a specific verb, resource, and scope. It clearly distinguishes this tool from get_firewall_policy_ordering and set_acl_rule_ordering without ambiguity.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to use the same source/destination zone pair read via get_firewall_policy_ordering, which establishes a clear precondition and pairs this setter with its getter. It does not explicitly list when not to use the tool, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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