create_nat_rule

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false), the description warns that the same rule_id overwrites, which is a crucial behavioral trait. It also discloses the need for an edge cluster and TIER1_NAT advertisement for the NAT to be realized, and describes the return value including error hints. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 with a brief purpose line, critical usage warnings, and a clear Args list. Despite the length, every sentence adds necessary information and no redundant filler is present.

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 tool with no output schema and complex prerequisites, the description covers all necessary context: how to obtain IDs, the overwrite risk, upstream requirements, return format, and confirmation step. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke 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 fully compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose, including required conditions (source_network for SNAT, destination_network for DNAT) and defaults (action default 'DNAT', target default omitted). This is far beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 starts with 'Create a NAT rule on a Tier-1 gateway's USER NAT section', clearly stating the verb, resource, and specific location. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_nat_rules and delete_nat_rule by its create focus and explicit placement.

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 instructs to run list_tier1_gateways and list_nat_rules to avoid ID clashes, names create_tier1_gateway and update_tier1_gateway as prerequisites, and identifies delete_nat_rule as the inverse. These are concrete, actionable guidelines that also reference sibling tools appropriately.

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