update_dfw_policy

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explaining PATCH semantics, noting that omitted arguments keep their values, and that it returns the updated policy dict. This adds important context not captured by the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint flags, though it doesn't cover potential side effects like audit logs.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core action, followed by behavior and an Args list. Every sentence contributes value, and the format makes it easy to scan.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description states the return type and provides sufficient guidance for a partially-updating tool, including the read-first workflow and alternative for rules. Combined with the sibling tools, it is contextually 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by documenting every parameter (policy_id, display_name, description, sequence_number, stateful, target) with a brief but useful explanation, such as 'New display name' and 'Optional NSX Manager target from config.' This adds meaning beyond the raw 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 'Partially update a DFW security policy (PATCH — only provided fields change)' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from update_dfw_rule by noting rule-level changes use a different tool.

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?

It explicitly explains when to use it ('rename or re-prioritise the policy itself') and when not to ('to change a rule inside use update_dfw_rule'), and advises reading the policy first with get_dfw_policy to preserve omitted fields.

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