update_rule

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

With no annotations available, the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It only says 'Update', implying mutation, but gives no details about permissions, whether the update is partial or full, side effects, or reversibility. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with no safety annotations.

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, grammatically complete sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded, though it may be too brief given the tool's complexity, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

The tool is a mutation with 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, yet the description only states its basic purpose. It does not explain update semantics (e.g., whether omitted fields are retained), what the response contains, or any prerequisites like rule_id. This is incomplete for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 6 parameters, including rule_id, name, status, schedule_spec, execution_spec, and evaluation_spec. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not improve parameter understanding.

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 'Update an existing automated rule.' clearly states the action (update) and resource (automated rule), and the word 'existing' distinguishes it from create operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling update tools or describe the scope of what can be updated, so it is clear but not maximally specific.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_rule, delete_rule, or get_rule. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided. The description simply states what the tool does without helping the agent choose it appropriately.

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