update_firewall_zone_proxy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly says 'full firewall zone configuration to replace with,' revealing that the operation is a full replacement (PUT-like) rather than a merge. It also discloses the composite ID format for host and the required zone_id source. It does not discuss side effects or permissions, but the key replacement semantics are clear.

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, stating the core operation first, followed by a terse but useful parameter legend. There is no fluff or repetition; each sentence earns its place.

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 purpose, parameter semantics, and a critical prerequisite (obtaining zone_id). It does not specify the internal structure of the 'zone' object, but the phrase 'full firewall zone configuration' directs the agent to use an existing config object. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are unnecessary. Overall, it is sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

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 fully. It does: host explains accepted formats (console name, ID, or MAC:numericId), site is name or ID, zone is a full replacement configuration, and zone_id is marked REQUIRED with a retrieval source. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare string/object type declarations.

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 states a specific action ('Update a firewall zone by ID') and names the resource, while 'via connector proxy' differentiates it from any non-proxy variant. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling firewall zone tools (list/create/get/delete).

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 provides clear context: this tool updates an existing firewall zone, and it tells the agent exactly how to obtain the required zone_id (from list_firewall_zones_proxy). It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is strong enough to guide usage.

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