update_rewrite_ruleModify an existing proxy rewrite rule by ID, passing only the fields that need to change.
Update a rewrite rule by id. Partial — only changed fields need be passed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | No | ||
| value | No | ||
| action | No | ||
| target | No | ||
| enabled | No | ||
| match_url | No | ||
| match_method | 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 non-read-only, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: an unspecified field is left untouched rather than cleared, which is the key semantic of a partial update. It still omits permission/auth needs and reversibility.
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?
Two tight sentences with the action and target front-loaded and no filler; the second sentence carries real information. Minimal but earned.
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 destructive 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the definition is too thin. It never characterizes the fields being edited (URL/match/method/rewrite action semantics) or the response, so an agent cannot reliably construct a call from the description alone.
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 schema contributes nothing and the description must compensate. It explains only that id selects the target and that unspecified fields are optional, leaving name/value/action/target/enabled/match_url/match_method entirely unexplained.
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 (rewrite rule) qualified by id, which cleanly separates it from the create/delete/toggle/list rewrite-rule siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, 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?
"Partial — only changed fields need be passed" gives mechanical invocation guidance, but there is no statement of when to use this rather than toggle_rewrite_rule (for enabling/disabling) or the create/delete variants, and no prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.