hcl_apply_acl

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior beyond that: it mutates only the requested rules/bindings and leaves unrelated scope untouched, and it mandates readback plus unrelated-scope checks after applying. That is meaningful operational detail not present in 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?

Two tight sentences with the key scope constraint front-loaded before the mandatory-verification note. Dense but every clause carries meaning; minor jargon ('preflight', 'readback') without much waste.

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 destructive tool with a large nested schema, no output schema, and a dry_run parameter, the description leaves too much unexplained: what the response contains, how failures/partial application are reported, and what dry_run actually returns. The preflight/readback notes help but do not fill the gap.

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 5 params including a deeply nested Acl object, so the description must compensate. It only hints at the name-vs-number dichotomy ('numbered or named ACL') and at the rules/bindings structure; project_path, topology, device, acl_type, implicit_deny, and dry_run are entirely unaddressed.

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 and resource ('Apply one strict Comware numbered or named ACL') and scopes it to a single ACL, which distinguishes it from hcl_remove_acl and the other hcl_apply_* siblings by domain. It stops short of naming a sibling outright, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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?

'after identity, backup and restore preflight' implies a prerequisite ordering (use hcl_backup_config / identity checks first), which is real usage context. However, it never states when to prefer this over a plan/deploy path or what to do for removal, and it omits any mention of the available dry_run escape hatch.

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