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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, so the write nature is known. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the word 'change' – no disclosure of whether the patch is a partial or full replacement, idempotency, side effects, or required permissions. It does not contradict the annotations but adds no transparency 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 one-phrase description is short but does not earn its place because it merely restates the tool name. It provides no scoping, examples, or context that would help an agent, so the brevity is under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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 mutation tool with a nested patch object, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how patch is applied (partial vs full update), whether status changes have side effects, or any validation beyond the schema. With no output schema and minimal annotations, the description should offer more operational context but does not.

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%, with the patch object's allowed fields and ruleId format clearly documented. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema handles the semantic burden.

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 'Zmiana reguły decyzyjnej' ('Change decision rule') is a direct restatement of the tool name with no added specificity about what fields or behaviors are involved. It does not distinguish the update operation from create_decision_rule or delete_decision_rule, so an agent cannot tell functionality apart from the name alone.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions that warrant an update, or when to prefer create/delete instead, leaving the agent to infer usage from naming conventions.

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