update_page_rule_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does not state whether the update is partial or full replacement, what happens to omitted fields, what permissions are required, or whether the operation is destructive. Only the return type is mentioned, and an output schema already exists for that.

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 action, then organized into Args and Returns sections. It is appropriately sized, though the Returns line is redundant given the existing output schema.

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 six parameters, no annotations, and zero schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It omits update semantics, permission requirements, and detailed parameter structure, leaving an agent without enough context 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all six parameters and adds format hints for zone_id and rule_id (32-character hex strings), but the complex array-of-object parameters 'targets' and 'actions' are described only as 'URL patterns' and 'Actions' with no structural guidance. It adds partial value over 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 states a specific verb+resource ('Update an existing page rule'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling create/delete/list page rule tools. There is no explicit naming of alternatives, but the 'existing' qualifier distinguishes it adequately.

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?

It only says 'Update an existing page rule' with no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or conditions under which one should choose this over create_page_rule_tool or delete_page_rule_tool. Usage context is left entirely to inference.

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