Reprioritize rate-limit rules

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the [WRITE] marker and POST endpoint are consistent but largely redundant. The description adds no permission requirements, side effects, body semantics, or response behavior.

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-line format is compact and front-loads [WRITE] and the endpoint, but for a write mutation with a required nested body it is under-specified rather than effectively concise.

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 write operation with no output schema, 0% parameter documentation, and a nested body, the description omits effect, body shape, permissions, and return behavior. It is not sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool safely.

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 0% for two required parameters, including an arbitrary nested body object. The description only embeds {domain} in the endpoint template and says nothing about the body's expected fields or ordering semantics, so it fails to compensate for the empty schema.

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 (reprioritize) and resource (rate-limit rules), making it distinguishable from the firewall-rule sibling. However, it never explains what reprioritizing actually does, such as reordering rules or what body format is expected, so the purpose remains only partially clear.

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 no when-to-use guidance relative to update_rate_limit_rule, list_rate_limit_rules, or reprioritize_firewall_rules. It also lacks prerequisites or context, offering only [WRITE] and the raw endpoint.

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