update_reporting_rule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'Update' without explaining whether the operation is idempotent, partial or full replacement, or what consequences occur if the rule doesn't exist. Permission requirements and side effects are also unaddressed.

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 a single sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It offers no informative content beyond the tool name, making it fail to earn its place in the definition.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description should provide more context about its usage and behavior. It only restates the tool name, leaving the agent uninformed about when to use it or what to expect. The schema covers parameters, but the overall context is 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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters, so the schema already provides the necessary parameter semantics. The description itself adds no further parameter information, but the high schema coverage makes the baseline of 3 appropriate.

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 reporting rule' is essentially a tautology of the tool name, restating the same verb and resource without adding any distinguishing details. It doesn't differentiate from similar update tools like update_config, nor does it explain what aspects of a reporting rule can be modified.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_reporting_rule, delete_reporting_rule, or get_reporting_rule. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or conditions that would make this tool the appropriate choice.

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