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

The description clearly identifies a partial-update behavior (only provided fields are changed) and scopes the operation to draft versions. The annotations already mark destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the description adds relevant behavioral nuance beyond what 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and the key behavioral caveat. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

Reasonable for a moderate-complexity tool: it identifies draft-scope and partial-update behaviorcars. However, it does not mention return values, failure modes, prerequisites, or the relationship to other rule-lifecycle operations, so an agent gets only partial operational context.

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?

The schema already documents all four parameters, but the description adds key semantic context: 'Only provided fields are changed' clarifies partial update semantics, which is important for correctly using the optional fields inside the rule payload.

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, resource, and scope: updates an existing rule within a draft version. The distinction from create/delete/toggle is implicit through 'update existing', though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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?

Provides useful context ('in a DRAFT version', 'Only provided fields are changed') that clarifies when and how to use the tool, but gives no explicit guidance on alternatives such as create, delete, or reorder, or prerequisites like publishing.

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