create_dfw_policy

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral context like category evaluation order and default values, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., duplicate policy_id handling) or required permissions.

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 a well-structured Python docstring, front-loaded with the write indicator, and every sentence adds value. No fluff.

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?

Given the 7 parameters and no output schema, the description thoroughly explains all inputs. It is missing return value information (what the tool outputs), which would enhance completeness for a creation tool.

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 provides full documentation for all 7 parameters, including constraints, defaults, and meaning (e.g., category enum values, priority order). This compensates completely for the missing schema descriptions.

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 '[WRITE] Create a new DFW security policy' using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_dfw_rule or create_group.

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 explains the category evaluation order and sequence number priority, implying usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_dfw_policy or delete_dfw_policy.

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