Create firewall rule

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond annotations by warning that any VM with the firewall activated will lose sync and require manual re-sync. This is a critical side-effect not conveyed by annotations, adding value.

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 four sentences, each serving a purpose: the first states the action, the second explains default behavior and necessity, the third warns about side-effects, and the fourth reaffirms the use case. It is concise without fluff, though it could be slightly more compact by merging some sentences.

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 purpose, default-drop context, side-effects, and usage, providing a solid understanding for the agent. It lacks mention of prerequisites like needing an existing firewall, but that is implied by the 'specified firewall' phrasing. No output schema exists, so it doesn't need to explain return values.

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 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented (e.g., port: 'Port or port range, ex: 1024:2048'). The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides. The general context about default drop behavior indirectly informs why these parameters matter, but that's not direct parameter semantics.

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 the verb 'Create' and the resource 'firewall rule for a specified firewall', which precisely defines the action. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like VPS_updateFirewallRuleV1 and VPS_deleteFirewallRuleV1.

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 provides important usage context: it explains the default drop-all-incoming-traffic behavior and the necessity to add accept rules for desired ports. It explicitly says 'Use this endpoint to add new security rules to firewalls.' However, it does not mention when NOT to use it or explicitly point to alternatives like update/delete.

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