cdp_update_a360_rule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't mention permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The JSON format requirement is helpful but insufficient for a mutation tool with zero 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?

The description is extremely concise with just one sentence that contains essential information: the action, target, and parameter format. Every word earns its place with zero waste or redundancy. It's perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 3 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what an A360 rule is, what fields can be updated, required permissions, error handling, or provide examples. The presence of an output schema helps but doesn't compensate for these 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 0%, so parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'updated fields as a JSON string' which partially explains the 'body' parameter, but doesn't clarify what fields are updatable, the JSON structure, or the purpose of 'rule_id' and 'tenant_id'. It adds minimal value beyond the bare schema.

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 ('existing A360 rule'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'cdp_create_a360_rule' and 'cdp_delete_a360_rule' by specifying it's for updating existing rules. However, it doesn't specify what an 'A360 rule' is or what fields can be updated, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 like 'cdp_create_a360_rule' or 'cdp_get_a360_rule'. It mentions 'existing A360 rule' which implies it requires a pre-existing rule, but doesn't state prerequisites, error conditions, or when other tools might be more appropriate. Usage context is minimal.

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