Binalyze AIR MCP Server

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. It states the tool updates an existing rule, implying mutation, but doesn't address critical aspects: required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling (e.g., invalid ID), or what happens to unspecified fields. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Update an existing triage rule'), making it immediately clear. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 (mutation with 5 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the update does (e.g., partial vs. full updates), expected outcomes, or error conditions. For a tool that modifies security-related triage rules, more context is needed to guide safe and effective use.

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 the schema fully documents all 5 parameters (id, description, rule, searchIn, organizationIds). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 action ('Update') and resource ('an existing triage rule by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_triage_rule' by specifying it updates existing rules, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_organization_by_id' or 'update_policy'.

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), compare with similar tools like 'update_policy', or indicate when not to use it (e.g., for creating new rules). The agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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