update_chaos_ruleModify an existing chaos rule by ID to adjust network fault injection settings, including delays, throttling, error rates, and URL patterns. Only specified fields are updated.
Update a chaos rule by id. Partial.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | No | ||
| enabled | No | ||
| delay_ms | No | ||
| url_pattern | No | ||
| throttle_kbps | No | ||
| error_rate_pct | No | ||
| corruption_mode | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the bar is lower. The word 'Partial' usefully discloses that only supplied fields are modified and the rest are preserved, but the description says nothing about the destructive consequences implied by the annotation or what happens to untouched fields beyond that single word.
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?
Extremely short and front-loaded, with no wasted sentences. However, 'Partial.' is a fragment that is under-specified rather than genuinely concise, and it leaves the reader to guess what partiality means operationally.
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 an 8-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema and no enum hints, the description is far too thin. It should explain partial-update semantics, field meanings/ranges, and the destructive behavior the annotations only flag.
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% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'By id' covers the one required parameter, but the seven optional fields (delay_ms, throttle_kbps, error_rate_pct, corruption_mode, url_pattern, name, enabled) get no meaning, units, or ranges in either place.
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 and resource ('Update a chaos rule by id') and the 'Partial' qualifier signals PATCH-style semantics, which distinguishes it somewhat from toggle_chaos_rule. It never names or compares against the sibling operations (create_chaos_rule, delete_chaos_rule, toggle_chaos_rule), so differentiation is left to inference.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as toggle_chaos_rule (for flipping enabled) or update_mock_rule/update_rewrite_rule (for other rule types). 'By id' only implies the target, not the usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.