update_dfw_rule

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that this is a write operation with PATCH semantics, and that only provided fields change. No contradictions. Additional context on partial update is useful beyond 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?

The description starts with a clear header line and then a parameter list. It is reasonably concise, though the list takes 12 lines. Every line is functional; no redundant information. Structure is clean and easy to parse.

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 tool has many parameters and no output schema. The description explains the partial update behavior and lists all parameters. However, it lacks details about success/error responses, required permissions, or rate limits. Given the complexity, some context is missing.

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%, so the description carries the burden. It lists each parameter with a brief one-line description (e.g., 'policy_id: Parent policy identifier'), which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's title. For 12 parameters, the descriptions are terse and some (like 'target') are vague. Meets baseline but does not excel.

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 rule (PATCH — only provided fields change)', specifying the verb, resource, and HTTP method. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_dfw_rule and delete_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 lists parameters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or comparison to other update methods (e.g., full update is absent). Usage is implied but not guided.

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