x_api_update_rules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses mutating/high-risk nature, bearer token requirement, tenant/credential selection behavior, common failures, and safety warnings. However, the 'bearer token' prerequisite seems to conflict with the schema's preferredAuthType enum allowing OAuth types, and the exact mutation semantics (add/replace/delete) are not described, preventing a perfect score.

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 well-structured with labeled sections and is dense with useful information. The redundant 'Use when: Update stream rules.' line wastes a bit of space, but every other sentence contributes. It is longer than the TDQS examples but justified by the absence of annotations and the tool's complexity.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 9 parameters, the description is quite complete: it provides expected response shape, failure conditions, prerequisites, safety warnings, and an example. It lacks full parameter coverage (preferredAuthType) and does not explain the relationship to stream rule retrieval, but overall it covers the essential context well.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains dry_run, delete_all, body, scopeTenantId, scopeUserId, scopeAccountId, and credentialKey reasonably well, but omits preferredAuthType and does not detail the body structure. The description adds meaning beyond the schema for most parameters, but not all.

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 clearly states 'Update stream rules', identifying the specific action and resource, which distinguishes it from getter tools like x_api_get_rules. However, the 'Use when' line repeats the same phrasing and adds no additional clarity, and the description does not elaborate on what 'update' entails beyond the name.

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?

It provides explicit when-not-to-use guidance, recommending x_schema_discovery or x_query_suggestion for exploration, and mentions when a more specific auth/configuration tool is needed. It also lists recommended prerequisite/follow-up tools. However, the 'Use when' is tautological and there is no direct comparison with rule-related tools like x_api_get_rules, so it falls short of a 5.

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