replace_firewall_rules

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

Discloses atomic transaction behavior and underlying SQL operation, which is important for a destructive write. However, does not mention authentication or rate limits, though those may be assumed. With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does well.

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?

Three sentences efficiently convey purpose, implementation detail, and workflow with no unnecessary information. Front-loaded with purpose.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, and workflow adequately. Given the tool has an output schema (not shown), the lack of return value explanation is acceptable. The complex RuleModel is left to the schema, which is reasonable. Could mention output status, but overall complete.

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%, but the description does not explain the parameters 'policy' and 'rules' beyond the schema titles. It implies they constitute the rule list but adds no detail on allowed values or structure, leaving agents to rely solely on the 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?

The description clearly states the tool atomically replaces the entire rule list, using specific verb 'replace'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_firewall_rules' and explicitly mentions there is no per-rule CRUD, preventing misuse.

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 explicit guidance: read with list_firewall_rules, mutate, then write back, implying when to use this tool (for full replacement) and when not to (for individual rule changes). Also names the alternative tool for reading.

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