Update Waf Rule Tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers almost nothing beyond implying mutation. It does not disclose whether omitted optional fields (all default to null) preserve or clear existing values, whether the operation requires elevated permissions, or how a missing/unknown rule_id is handled.

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?

Two short sentences with the core operation front-loaded and the constraint immediately after. There is no filler, though the overall thinness reflects missing content rather than successful economy.

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 partial-update mutation tool with seven optional/defaulted parameters and no annotations, the description omits the most decision-relevant facts: null-vs-preserve semantics for unset fields, auth requirements, and failure behavior. The output schema covers return values, so that gap is excused, but the mutation semantics are not.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a genuinely new constraint the schema cannot express: zone_id and zone_name are mutually exclusive ('provide either... not both'), while both are merely nullable in the schema. That is real added meaning beyond the field descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb (update) and resource (WAF custom rule) with the qualifier 'existing', which implicitly distinguishes it from create_waf_rule_tool and delete_waf_rule_tool. It does not name siblings explicitly, so the differentiation relies on the reader's inference rather than direct routing.

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 only guidance is the zone_id/zone_name mutual exclusion, which is a parameter constraint rather than usage context. It never says when to reach for this tool versus list_waf_rules_tool, create_waf_rule_tool, or delete_waf_rule_tool, nor what prerequisites (e.g., rule must already exist) apply.

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