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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses useful behavioral details: only submitted fields are updated, enabled steps are protected, and the API responds with 409 in that conflict case. This adds real context without contradicting the annotations.

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 two short sentences with no filler: it front-loads the core constraint ('only sent fields while disabled') and then adds the 409 caveat. Every clause carries useful information.

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?

The description is complete about the disabled/enabled constraint but insufficient for a 14-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions. It does not explain what the fields mean, how they combine, or what a successful response looks like.

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?

With 14 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate by explaining or disambiguating field semantics. It only says 'only sent fields' and leaves fields like goal, event, action, target_tag_id, delay_minutes, and others unexplained. rule_id is required in the schema, but no additional parameter meaning is provided.

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 names a concrete operation — editing a rule step — and adds the scoping condition 'пока он выключен' (while it is disabled). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_sales_rule and update_sales_stage without requiring schema inspection.

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 explicitly states that the tool should be used for disabled rule steps and that enabled steps return 409 and can only be changed by the owner in the dashboard. It provides a clear when-not condition, though it does not name a specific sibling alternative.

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