scm_update_authentication_rule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) but doesn't disclose critical traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, side effects (e.g., rule reordering), rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields (partial vs. full updates). For a mutation tool with 12 parameters, this is inadequate.

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 and appropriately sized. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a clear 'Args:' section listing all parameters with concise explanations. There's no redundant information, though the parameter descriptions could be slightly more detailed given the 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 the tool's complexity (12 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers parameters but misses critical context: no behavioral transparency (permissions, side effects), no usage guidelines, no error handling information, and no explanation of what the update returns. For a security configuration tool, this leaves significant gaps for safe operation.

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 description adds significant value beyond the schema, which has 0% description coverage. It provides brief explanations for all 12 parameters (e.g., 'UUID of the authentication rule to update', 'New name (optional)', 'Optional TSG ID or named alias'), clarifying their purpose and optionality. However, it lacks format details (e.g., UUID format, zone naming conventions) and doesn't explain interactions between parameters.

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 the verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing authentication rule'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'scm_create_authentication_rule' and 'scm_delete_authentication_rule' by specifying it's for updating existing rules, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other update tools (e.g., 'scm_update_security_rule').

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing rule ID), when not to use it (e.g., for creating new rules), or how it relates to sibling tools like 'scm_create_authentication_rule' or 'scm_get_authentication_rule'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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