Update mock rule

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

The patch semantics (unspecified fields retain current values) is a genuine behavioral trait not derivable from the annotations, and stating that the updated rule is returned helps with no output schema present. However, with destructiveHint=true the description never explains what is being destroyed or whether the change can be rolled back, leaving the most consequential annotation unelaborated.

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, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the argument rule, then the return value. No filler sentences.

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?

Mentions the return value, which compensates for the absent output schema, and covers the update semantics. It remains incomplete for a 10-parameter mutation tool where nine fields have no documented meaning or accepted value formats.

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 only 10% (just 'Mock rule id'), and there are 10 parameters. The description adds the cross-cutting patch rule but no per-field meaning, so ambiguous fields like dynamic and enabled are left undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 (mock rule) scoped by id, which cleanly separates it from the sibling update_chaos_rule and update_rewrite_rule on resource name alone. It does not explicitly call out the siblings or contrast with toggle_mock_rule, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 description gives a clear usage rule for the arguments ('Pass only the fields you want to change; missing fields keep their current value'), which is real guidance about partial updates. It says nothing about when to prefer this over toggle_mock_rule, create_mock_rule, or delete_mock_rule, and no preconditions are stated.

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