propose_update_rule

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses that the tool is non-destructive ('Changes nothing'), shows before/after fields, and explains the replacement semantics for nested objects. It also notes limitations for read-only rules.

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 concise and well-organized with a clear hierarchy: purpose, behavior, usage example, and important notes. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Considering the complexity (nested objects, no output schema) the description provides sufficient context: return value (draft_id), behavior preview, and commit path. It covers all necessary aspects for correct usage.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning by explaining the source of rule_id and providing examples for changes. It does not detail the exact structure for conditions/actions/exceptions but gives essential context.

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 clearly defines the tool as a preview for updating an existing rule, using specific verbs like 'PREVIEW' and 'returns a draft_id'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like propose_rule and propose_delete_rule by focusing on existing rules.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (before applying with apply_rule) and when not to use it (for read-only rules, which must be edited in Outlook). It also explains the replacement behavior of the changes field, providing clear guidance.

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