Update Health Rule

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

The description discloses the key behavioral trait beyond annotations: a two-step fetch-merge-put process, ensuring idempotency (annotations idempotentHint=true). It aligns with all annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and adds value by explaining how partial updates are handled.

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 front-loaded with the core operation and merge logic, then lists args. While clear, the arg list is redundant given the schema. Minor waste could be trimmed, but overall it is efficient.

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 many sibling health rule tools and no output schema, the description lacks details about the return object structure (only 'Updated health rule object'). Prerequisites like existence of the rule and application are implied but not stated. Completeness is adequate but has gaps.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description's arg list merely reiterates parameter names and types from the schema without adding new meaning or usage hints. It does not compensate beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Update an existing health rule by ID' with a specific verb (update) and resource (health rule). It distinguishes from siblings like create_health_rule and delete_health_rule by focusing on modification of an existing 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 explains the merge pattern ('Only fields you supply are changed') and the read-modify-update process. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like enable/disable or create, leaving usage context implicit rather than explicit.

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