update_dfw_rule

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

Annotations already flag this as non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds important behavioral context such as PATCH semantics ('only provided fields change'), the fact that omitted arguments keep their values, and the return of the updated rule dict. It doesn't cover auth or failure modes, but it goes meaningfully beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the essential purpose, then provides compact usage guidance and an organized parameter list. Every sentence earns its place; the Args block is lengthy only because it must compensate for absent schema descriptions, and it is cleanly formatted.

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 the full usage flow: read current state first, perform a partial update, and receive the updated rule dict. It names relevant alternatives and explains the optional target. It omits only deeper error/atomicity details, which are not necessary for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description's Args section compensates by explaining all 12 parameters in plain terms, including 'New source groups' and 'Optional NSX Manager target from config'. It could provide more format-level detail, but it clearly adds meaning beyond the bare property names.

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 rule (PATCH)' with a specific verb and resource, and the [WRITE] prefix reinforces the action type. It also explicitly distinguishes this from creating or deleting a rule by naming the alternative sibling tools.

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 gives precise when-to-use guidance: 'retarget, re-prioritise or disable a rule'. It explicitly names alternatives for add (create_dfw_rule) and remove (delete_dfw_rule), and advises reading current values with list_dfw_rules first because omitted fields retain their values.

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