enable_firewall_rule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses the server-side write gate (MIKROTIK_ALLOW_WRITE=true), the confirm=False dry-run default vs confirm=True apply, the AmbiguousResourceError, and the no-match error. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs and cannot infer from the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and CLI command, then structured into rationale, safety gate, and error behavior. It is somewhat long and uses emphasis formatting, but nearly every sentence earns its place given the safety-critical nature.

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 guarded write tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description covers target selection, the write-enable prerequisite, the two-step confirm flow, and failure modes, leaving nothing an agent needs to call it correctly. Output schema exists, so return-value detail is appropriately omitted.

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 that `comment` resolves the target rule, `chain` optionally narrows when comments collide, and `confirm` toggles preview vs apply (with default). Each of the four parameters gets meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Enable an EXISTING firewall filter rule'), gives the underlying CLI command, and explicitly distinguishes itself from creation. The sibling set includes disable_firewall_rule and firewall_filter, so stating 'EXISTING' and 'NEVER creates a rule' sharpens the boundary.

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?

Provides an explicit intended workflow (admin pre-creates a disabled rule with a descriptive comment, LLM enables it later on detection), states the alternative meaning of chain narrowing, and rules out ambiguous cases. This is model when-to-use guidance.

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