Update rate-limit rule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description needn't repeat write semantics. But it adds nothing about PATCH partial-update behavior, whether omitted fields are preserved, permission requirements, or side effects — key questions for a 13-field mutation.

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?

It is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — the single bracketed token plus URL carries no actionable instruction. A useful description for this tool would need several sentences, none of which are present.

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?

A 13-parameter mutation tool with 8% schema coverage, no output schema, and no prose guidance leaves the agent without enough information to safely invoke it. Nothing about partial-update semantics, required vs optional field interactions, or validation rules is provided.

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 only 8% and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all. With 13 parameters (including nested action_details and arrays like allowed_methods/exclude_sources), the description completely fails to compensate for the near-total lack of schema documentation.

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 states the HTTP verb and endpoint path (PATCH /domains/{domain}/rate-limit/rules/{id}), so the resource being modified is identifiable as a rate-limit rule. However, it is essentially a restatement of the title plus a route, and it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like update_rate_limit_settings or reprioritize_rate_limit_rules beyond the endpoint.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus update_rate_limit_settings, create_rate_limit_rule, or delete_rate_limit_rule. An agent must infer the distinction from the name alone, which is only mildly informative.

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