update_firewall_policy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers. It explicitly says 'full-replace', which conveys potentially destructive behavior. It discloses the trafficFilter matching semantics and prominently warns about the port-filter placement footgun, including the silent no-match outcome and the runtime warning behavior. This is far more transparent than a generic 'update' description.

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?

Although somewhat long, every sentence is operational and earns its place. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then logically structured into parameter definitions, trafficFilter alternatives, and a highlighted footgun warning. Formatting with lists and all-caps warning aids scanning. There is 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?

Given the complexity (nested objects, required policy object, zero schema descriptions), the description covers all essential aspects: operation type, parameter formats, how to source the ID, and the critical port-filter trap. The existence of an output schema means return value details need not be included. An agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly, and the pointer to list_firewall_policies helps with the ID.

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 descriptions are completely absent (0% coverage), so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It explains host/site formats, that policy is the full configuration, and exactly how to obtain policy_id from list_firewall_policies. It also details the nested trafficFilter structure, type-by-type with field mappings, fully compensating for the schema's silence.

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 'Full-replace a firewall policy by ID', which clearly identifies the verb, resource, and scope. It explicitly contrasts with patch-style updates by emphasizing 'full-replace', making it distinguishable from the sibling patch_firewall_policy. The key parameters are also named, so an agent immediately knows what the tool does.

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 phrase 'Full-replace' provides implicit guidance that this tool is for complete replacement, implying that a partial update would use patch_firewall_policy. It also gives practical instructions for obtaining policy_id. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state precise conditions for when to choose this over create or patch, leaving some inference to the agent.

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