lucky_update_stun_rule

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and destructive hints, so the description does not need to restate them. It adds a meaningful behavioral hint by requiring a 'complete native Lucky JSON object,' implying full replacement rather than a partial patch, but it gives no detail about side effects or response behavior.

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 definition is one efficient sentence with no filler, front-loading the operation and resource before the mechanism. It loses one point because the jargon phrase 'complete native Lucky JSON object' could be clearer without making the sentence longer.

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 a nested value object, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the single sentence does not give an agent enough to construct a correct call. The description should specify or point to how the native Lucky object is shaped and what the update response is.

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%, so the description carries the full burden for explaining parameters. It identifies 'key' as the lookup identifier and 'value' as the complete JSON object, but 'native Lucky JSON object' is undefined and the schema's arbitrary-object value is left under-specified.

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 states a clear verb-resource pair ('Update a Lucky stun rule') and names the key-based mechanism, which distinguishes it from the create/delete/list stun-rule siblings. It stops short of 5 because it does not explicitly contrast with create_stun_rule or state that only existing rules are targeted.

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 guidance about when to choose this tool over update/create/delete siblings, nor any prerequisites such as first retrieving the rule via list/get. The only usage signal is the phrase 'using its key and complete native Lucky JSON object,' which describes the call shape rather than when to invoke it.

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