Update project approval rule

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) but not destructive. The description adds that updates involve a 'governance change' and require explicit acknowledgment, which provides extra context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose other behavioral details like side effects or permission requirements, so credit is limited.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys purpose and a key guideline with zero filler. It is extremely concise and well-structured.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool has 10 parameters with minimal documentation. The description does not explain required parameters, how they interrelate, or any constraints beyond the acknowledgment prerequisite. It is insufficient for a complex update operation, making the description incomplete.

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 10%, and the description does not elaborate on parameters. It only hints at 'acknowledge_policy_change' via the governance acknowledgment phrase, but most fields like approvals_required, user_ids, group_ids, report_type, etc., remain unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 and resource: 'Update a project approval rule', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, delete, get, and list approval rules. It also adds a critical qualifier about reading the current rule first, making the purpose precise.

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 a precondition: only update after reading the current rule and acknowledging the governance change. This provides strong usage guidance, though it does not name alternative tools, the context is clear enough for selecting this tool over others.

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