Update a rule

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds the operationally critical detail the annotations cannot convey: this is a full overwrite, so anything omitted is dropped rather than preserved. That is exactly the kind of consequence an agent must know before invoking a destructive write.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the destructive overwrite warning is front-loaded ahead of the read-first advice. Every sentence 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?

With five parameters fully documented in the schema and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description supplies the one missing piece — full-replacement semantics and the recommended read-before-write step. Nothing needed to call this correctly is absent.

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 100% and the schema itself already states conditions and actions are 'the complete ... set, not a partial update.' The description reinforces the same point but adds no syntax, format, or meaning beyond the structured fields, so the baseline 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?

States a precise verb+resource ('Replace a rule's conditions and actions') and the replace semantics immediately distinguish it from create_rule and from a hypothetical partial-update tool. An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly names the prerequisite workflow — read the current rule with `list_rules` first — and the condition that makes that necessary (omitted data is dropped). It does not say when NOT to use this tool (e.g. use create_rule for new rules), so it falls just short of a full when/when-not/alternative statement.

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