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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation by specifying exactly what is destroyed: the config is replaced wholesale, not merged, so omitted fields are lost. It adds that tool_type, object_type and kind are immutable and that the change affects only future runs. This is high-value behavioral context that annotations cannot convey.

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 dangerous replace-not-merge behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the required workflow and the immutability/scope caveats. Every sentence carries distinct, actionable information with no padding.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers everything needed: the replacement semantics, the read-before-write workflow, immutable fields, and the temporal scope of the effect. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely 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 coverage is 100% (baseline 3), but the description meaningfully adds to it: name must be resent to preserve it, and config is a full replacement rather than a delta. These semantics (non-merge, immutability of certain fields) are not captured in 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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Rename an existing rule or REPLACE its config wholesale' — with the scope of the change made explicit. An agent can immediately tell this updates an existing rule template rather than creating one, and the sibling reference to get_rule_template reinforces which resource is being touched.

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?

Gives concrete preconditions: read the current rule with get_rule_template and send it back, and it warns that omitted parts are deleted. It also states the alternative for changing kind (author a new template rather than update). It does not contrast with other update_* siblings (e.g. update_plan_inputs), but the when-to-do-what guidance within this tool is strong.

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