update_acl

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and safety (destructiveHint=false). Description adds the behavioral requirement of scripting enabled, which is not in annotations. No contradictions. Could elaborate on side effects, but sufficient given annotation coverage.

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?

Single sentence efficiently conveys core action and prerequisite. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded with verb and resource.

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 an update tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential prerequisite. It could mention that the operation is idempotent (matching annotation) or what is returned, but the simple nature makes it adequate.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both sys_id and fields. Description does not add new semantic details beyond what schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description adds no extra meaning for 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?

Clearly states the action 'Update' and the resource 'existing ACL rule'. Distinguishes from siblings like create_acl and list_acls by specifying it modifies an existing rule. Includes a critical prerequisite (SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true) that adds specificity.

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?

Provides an explicit prerequisite (SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true), guiding agents on when this tool is usable. However, does not compare against alternatives like patch operations or explain when not to use it (e.g., for new ACLs). Still, the precondition is valuable context.

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