Update firewall rule

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses a critical side effect: any virtual machine with this firewall activated will lose sync and must be manually synced again. This is valuable behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide and directly affects whether an agent should proceed.

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 short and front-loads the core purpose, followed by an important warning. However, the final sentence 'Use this endpoint to modify existing firewall rules' largely repeats the first sentence and does not earn its place.

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?

For a mutating firewall rule operation with six fully documented parameters and annotations indicating destructive behavior, the description covers the essential purpose and the key side effect. It is complete enough for an agent to decide whether to call this tool, even without an output schema.

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%, and every parameter already has a meaningful description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 first sentence clearly states the action (update), the resource (firewall rule), and the scope (a specific rule from a specified firewall). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like create or delete, but 'modify existing firewall rules' conveys the intended operation well.

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 states this is for modifying existing firewall rules, which implies when to use it versus creating new rules. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like VPS_createFirewallRuleV1 or VPS_deleteFirewallRuleV1, nor does it provide clear when-not-to-use guidance.

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