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

The draft-only restriction is real behavioral context not present in the annotations, which already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false. However, the description never says whether 'args' wholly replaces existing arguments or is merged with them, which is the key consequence for a destructive mutation. That leaves a meaningful disclosure gap beyond what the annotations provide.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core action and the draft-only scope front-loaded before the sibling routing note. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the sibling routing is handled. The remaining gap is the undocumented 'args' object (nested object, 4 required params, no structure anywhere), which an agent must infer before it can call this destructive 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?

Schema coverage is 50%: surveyId and displayLogicRuleId have descriptions, while ruleCondition and the free-form 'args' object have none. The description compensates partly by explaining where displayLogicRuleId comes from and by steering string-condition argument text to another tool, but it gives no hint about the shape of 'args' for enum values like is_selected_option or is_matrix_selected.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Change one display logic rule's condition and arguments'), scopes it to draft surveys, and explicitly separates it from display_logic_rule_update_text, which handles string-condition text. An agent can distinguish it from the create/delete/update_text siblings without reading schemas.

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?

It states the when (draft surveys only), the when-not (string condition text belongs to display_logic_rule_update_text), and points to display_logic_list as the source of the required rule ID. The primary routing decision an agent faces here is covered explicitly.

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