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

Annotations already declare that this is a destructive, non-read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation: it does not mention partial-update semantics (e.g., omitted fields remain unchanged), side effects, or required permissions. This leaves the agent to infer behavior from the schema and annotations alone.

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 a single sentence that is direct and free of filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the editable fields in a compact list. Nothing extraneous is included.

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?

This is a complex tool with eight parameters, nested action objects, enum values, and no output schema, yet the description provides only a terse list of editable fields. It omits critical context such as how to construct the action object, what a typical edit request looks like, partial-update behavior, and any relation to the rule's position or activation state. An agent given just this description would struggle to invoke the 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description is the primary source of parameter meaning, but it only names the editable fields without explaining their semantics. For instance, 'typed action' is ambiguous—the schema defines three action object variants, but the description does not clarify which types are valid, what fields are required, or how 'condition' and 'position' behave. The description insufficiently compensates for the lack of schema parameter descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('stage automation rule') and explicitly lists the editable attributes (trigger, typed action, condition, position, is_active state). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like create, delete, read, and list, so an agent can identify the correct operation without opening the schema.

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 verb 'Edit' implies this tool is used to modify an existing stage automation rule, but the description provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives such as yardstick_automation_rules_create or yardstick_automation_rules_read. The usage context is implied rather than stated, and there are no exclusionary notes.

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