aethis_update_rulebook

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuine facts beyond that: it requires an API key (auth requirement) and it behaves as a PATCH, leaving omitted fields untouched. It does not say what happens on a missing rulebook_id or whether the updated rulebook is returned.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the mutable fields and followed by the two operational constraints. No filler; each sentence carries information, though the structure is plain prose rather than optimized.

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 5-param partial-update tool with full schema coverage and a safety annotation set, the description covers what can change, that at least one field is required, that omissions are preserved, and the auth requirement. No output schema exists, so return values need not be described; only error behavior on an invalid rulebook_id is left unaddressed.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the detailed robot_hints beat list. The description only restates the same field names, adding the parenthetical 'assistant guidance for the conversational agent' which the schema already states. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 (update) and resource (Rulebook) and enumerates the exact mutable fields: name, description, slug, robot_hints. An agent can tell this is the mutation counterpart to aethis_create_rulebook, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Provide at least one field to change; omitted fields are left as-is' communicates partial-update semantics, which is useful invocation guidance. However, it never says when to reach for this tool versus aethis_create_rulebook or the various refine/validate tools, and gives no exclusions or preconditions.

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