update_dfw_policy

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

The description confirms a mutation operation (PATCH) and notes that only provided fields change. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds minimal extra context. It does not contradict annotations, but lacks details on side effects or permission requirements.

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 very concise: a single opening sentence defining the operation followed by a bullet-list of parameters. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded for quick comprehension.

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 operation type and all parameters, given the simple input schema and presence of annotations. It does not explain return values (no output schema) or error conditions, but for a basic PATCH operation, this is largely sufficient. Remaining gaps are minor.

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 listing all six parameters and explaining their roles (e.g., 'policy_id: ID of the policy to update', 'display_name: New display name (optional)'). The meaning of 'target' is clarified as 'Optional NSX Manager target name from config', which is not evident from the schema alone.

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)', specifying the verb (update), resource (DFW security policy), and method (PATCH). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_dfw_policy or update_dfw_rule.

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 implies that this tool is for making partial updates to an existing policy, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus other tools (e.g., create_dfw_policy for creation, update_dfw_rule for rules). No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, relying on the tool name and context.

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