Change rule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description usefully adds that after_recording_rule_id reorders rules rather than editing content. However, for an 11-parameter mutation it says nothing about whether omitted/null fields are left unchanged or cleared, what permissions or device auth are needed, or whether changes are reversible.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with the verb and wastes no words, which is good. But for a tool with eleven optional parameters and no schema descriptions, one sentence is under-sized for what the agent needs to know.

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?

With no output schema, 0% parameter coverage and sparse annotations, the description should explain the parameter surface and the partial-update model; it does neither. It conveys the tool's identity and one semantic detail, but not enough for an agent to invoke it correctly on an arbitrary rule.

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 0% across 11 parameters, so the description must carry the burden and it explains only after_recording_rule_id. series_id, team_only, channel_only, start_padding, end_padding, recent_only, date_time_only, after_original_airdate_only, recording_rule_id and device_auth remain completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 ('Modify') and resource ('a rule'), and adds a distinct secondary mode ('reprioritize it via after_recording_rule_id') that separates it from the add_* and delete_* siblings. It does not explicitly name hdhomerun_add_series_rule or hdhomerun_delete_rule as the alternatives for create/remove, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus hdhomerun_add_series_rule, hdhomerun_add_datetime_rule, or hdhomerun_delete_rule, and no prerequisites (e.g. that an existing recording_rule_id is required, even though that parameter is optional in the schema). The reprioritization clause hints at one use case but gives no conditions or exclusions.

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