update_automation_rule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses destructive replace-all semantics, the footgun that omitting `enabled` stores false and disables the rule, that the server performs no validation on `rules`, the required `automations:manage` permission, and the HTTP verb/path. These are exactly the traits an agent needs before mutating an automation.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: replacement semantics and the disabled-on-omission warning come before the read-first advice and permissions. The repeated title line 'Update Automation Rule' is mildly redundant, and the tag/endpoint lines are conventional but not strictly necessary.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers everything critical: replacement behavior, permission requirements, the silent-disable trap, the lack of rules validation, and the prescribed read-then-resend workflow. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns more by adding cross-parameter meaning the schema does not convey on its own: every field must be resent, `enabled` must be sent explicitly, and `events` is only meaningful for conversation_update. It stops short of explaining the type-dependent relationships in 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?

States a specific verb and resource and immediately clarifies that it is a full replacement rather than a partial merge ('name, description, type, events, enabled and rules are all overwritten with the body, nothing is merged'). This makes it distinguishable from create_automation_rule and toggle_automation_rule in intent, though siblings are not named explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear prerequisite/workflow: 'Read the rule first (`get_automation_rule`) and resend every field.' That names an alternative tool and the condition that selects it. It does not explicitly say when to prefer toggle_automation_rule over this tool for enabling/disabling, which keeps it from a 5.

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