df_rule_update

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only conveys mutation ('modify'), but does not state whether the update is partial or full, what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, or what response to expect.

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 very concise and front-loaded, but it is under-sized relative to the tool's complexity. While it avoids filler, it provides little more than a terse restatement of the tool's name and does not earn its place as a complete guide.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and only a one-sentence description, the tool lacks important context about update semantics, how the required name identifies an existing rule, and whether omitted fields are left unchanged or cleared. An agent can infer basic behavior from the schema but not enough to invoke the tool confidently.

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?

All four parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. The schema already documents that name identifies the rule and scope, action, and description are new values, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Modify') and a resource ('an existing rule'), making the action unambiguous. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like df_rule_create, df_rule_delete, and df_rule_toggle, even without naming them.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as df_rule_toggle, df_rule_create, or df_rule_project_override. It merely restates the function, leaving an agent to infer usage from the tool name and schema.

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