set_dmz

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real policy prerequisite (features.allow_dmz) that annotations cannot express, plus a hint that the operation is two-phase. However 'Two-phase' is left undefined, so the agent still cannot tell whether the first call stages a change and the second commits it, or what happens on a partial failure.

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?

Two short clauses, front-loaded with the action, with no filler. The dangling fragment 'Two-phase.' is terse to the point of being cryptic, but nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the destructive nature is covered by annotations. What is missing is the one thing the description alone could supply: the actual two-phase protocol and the semantics of confirm and expected_etag for a destructive network-exposure change.

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% across four parameters, so the description must carry the meaning and it does not. Neither ip, confirm, nor expected_etag is named or explained; the phrase 'Two-phase' vaguely gestures at confirm/expected_etag without defining their roles, and the ip argument that identifies the DMZ host is never mentioned.

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 pair (enable/disable) and a specific resource (the DMZ host), which cleanly separates it from the read-only sibling get_dmz_settings. It does not explicitly name that sibling, but the set/get pairing is unambiguous.

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 only conditional guidance is the parenthetical prerequisite features.allow_dmz in policy.toml, which is useful. There is no statement of when to prefer this over get_dmz_settings, no warning about the destructive effect on the existing DMZ configuration, and 'Two-phase' is offered without explaining what the phases are or how to sequence calls.

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