update_waf_rule_tool

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose side effects, permissions, or whether omitted parameters are merged or overwritten. This lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap for an update operation.

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 two sentences with no fluff. It states the purpose and a key parameter rule, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

While the resource and action are clear, the description does not explain what happens to unspecified optional fields (e.g., whether they are left unchanged or reset). Given the update context, this ambiguity leaves the behavior incomplete.

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 schema descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'New action (optional)'), but the tool description adds a crucial constraint about zone_id/zone_name exclusivity. This extra guidance goes beyond the schema, which lists both as optional without that relationship.

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 'Update an existing WAF custom rule' clearly identifies the operation (update) and the resource (WAF custom rule), distinguishing it from create/delete/list siblings.

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 provides a specific usage constraint: 'Provide either zone_id or zone_name, not both.' It does not explicitly mention alternative tools, but the action and resource make it clear when to use it relative to WAF rule operations.

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