update_dfw_policy

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

Annotations indicate a write operation with no destructive hint. The description adds context by specifying 'PATCH' and 'only provided fields change', which clarifies side effects. However, it could include more details like authorization requirements or error conditions.

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 concise and front-loaded with the action in brackets. The Args list is well-organized, providing a clear scan for the agent. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers the operation method, all parameters, and their optionality. It is sufficient for an agent to 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 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by listing all parameters and their optional nature, including the required policy_id. It adds semantic meaning beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 it performs a partial update (PATCH) on a DFW security policy, specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create_dfw_policy and delete_dfw_policy by emphasizing the 'update' action and the partial nature.

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 usage when updating an existing policy partially, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete/create or full update. No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use.

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