update-sec-rule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and does so thoroughly. It flags 'WRITE OPERATION: changes PCE state,' explains that in gated clients the call pauses for user approval, and warns that 'the call has not failed and must not be retried while waiting.' It also discloses partial-update semantics with 'Only the fields you supply change.' These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond what the schema conveys.

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 tightly written with no filler. It front-loads the core action and identification method, then efficiently covers the usage rationale, sibling routing, and the critical write-operation approval behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, scope, the distinction from sibling tools, partial-update behavior, write side effects, approval-pause behavior, and a retry prohibition. The rich parameter schema covers field-level semantics, so nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly 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, but the description adds real semantic value beyond the schema. Notably, it explains egress_services as a consumer-side process qualifier distinct from ingress_services, states that the PCE refuses a Windows egress service in ingress_services, and clarifies that both should be used together for 'this binary, to that port.' The partial-update statement also informs how all parameters behave.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Update an allow rule inside a ruleset, identified by its href.' It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling update-deny-rule by explicitly noting 'For deny rules use update-deny-rule.' An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and what it does not do.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use this to refine a rule in place... instead of rebuilding the ruleset.' It also names the alternative for deny rules and gives a concrete example use case (swapping an inline port for a process-qualified service). This leaves no ambiguity about when to select it over siblings.

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