update_rule

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 the genuinely valuable patch semantic that omitted fields are preserved, which an agent cannot derive from the annotations. It stays silent on permission requirements and error behavior for a nonexistent rule_id, keeping it below 5.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the highest-value fact (partial update) is placed immediately after the purpose statement. Nothing needs trimming.

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 mutation tool with 8 parameters, no output schema and only 38% schema description coverage, the definition is thin. It never states what the response contains, whether rule_id must already exist, or how validation errors surface, leaving the agent to discover these at call time.

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 38% schema coverage across 8 parameters, the schema documents rule_id and the array-replacement semantics of actions/conditions, but name, sends, replies, forwards and operator carry no per-field meaning anywhere. The description partially compensates by explaining that unspecified fields keep their current values, but adds nothing about the individual fields or that actions/conditions replace wholesale rather than merge.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Update a rule'), which separates it from create_rule, delete_rule and get_rule by name alone. It does not explicitly contrast with set_rule_active, which is the nearest source of confusion for state changes, so it falls short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance: nothing says to prefer create_rule for new rules, set_rule_active for toggling activation, or get_rule to read current values first. The reader must infer from the tool name that this is the edit path for an existing rule.

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