qradar_update_rule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it updates rule settings but does not disclose what happens if rule_id is invalid, whether the update replaces all unspecified fields, or any permission requirements. The 'Returns' line mentions a JSON string but no error 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 highly efficient: one sentence for purpose, then an Args block, then Returns. Front-loaded with the action. No redundancy or filler; every section 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, one required, output schema exists), the description covers parameters and return type. However, it lacks usage context (e.g., prerequisites) and behavioral nuance (partial vs full update, error handling), making it adequate but not fully complete for an autonomous agent.

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?

The description's Args section explains all three parameters with clear semantics: rule_id, enabled (True/False), and owner (new username). Schema only provides titles, so the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema, achieving full coverage despite 0% schema description coverage.

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 and resource: 'Update detection rule settings' and lists the specific actions (enable/disable, update owner). It distinguishes from siblings like list_rules and get_rule by being an update operation on rules, not offenses or reference sets.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like qradar_get_rule and qradar_list_rules exist, implying you'd first retrieve a rule, but this prerequisite is not stated. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned.

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