Update an IPS rule inside an IPS profile to adjust intrusion prevention settings.
Update an IPS rule within an IPS profile.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | JSON request body matching the target Security Director Cloud schema. | |
| rule_uuid | Yes | ||
| profile_uuid | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states that the tool updates a rule, but does not disclose if it's a full overwrite or partial update, whether it's idempotent, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
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 sentence, which is concise, but it sacrifices necessary information. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, but the brevity leads to incompleteness.
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 three required parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is highly incomplete. It fails to explain what the body should contain, how to obtain the UUIDs, or what the result of the update is. The agent would lack critical context to use this tool correctly.
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 low (33%), and the description adds no parameter clarification. The 'body' parameter has a vague description, while 'rule_uuid' and 'profile_uuid' are completely undocumented. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of detail.
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 IPS rule within an IPS profile' clearly identifies the action (update) and resource (IPS rule within IPS profile). It distinguishes from siblings like create, delete, get, but lacks specificity about the scope or context.
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 guidance on when to use update vs create or other operations. No preconditions or alternatives mentioned. The sibling tools include create and delete for the same resource, so explicit usage notes would be valuable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.