Update Federation Rule

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the PUT replacement model, that omitted optional fields are cleared, that changes invalidate existing workload access tokens, the exact return shape, and a strict auth profile (org admin, user session or OAuth full_access, but not API keys or workload tokens). All of this is consistent with destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and it flags the token invalidation consequence that annotations cannot express.

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?

Four dense sentences, no filler, with the most consequential constraint (full replacement, not partial) front-loaded. Every sentence carries distinct information: replacement semantics, clearing behavior, token invalidation, return shape, and auth requirements.

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 14-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the critical gaps: the return object's fields, the auth preconditions, and the side effect on workload tokens. The remaining gap is per-field meaning for the undocumented claim and audience parameters, which the description does not attempt.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 21% across 14 parameters, the description must carry the burden. It contributes one genuinely important rule — that omitted optional fields (permission, description, database_roles) are cleared — but says nothing about claim_conditions, allowed_audiences, principal_type, issuer_id, or database_roles, leaving most of the surface undocumented.

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 specific operation and semantics: 'Replace the complete configuration (PUT), not a partial update' on a federation rule (resource is named by the title). It is clear what the tool does and how it differs from a hypothetical partial update, but it never names its actual siblings (create-federation-rule, delete-federation-rule) to disambiguate.

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?

It establishes that this is a full-replacement operation and that omitted optional fields are cleared, which implicitly tells the agent when to prefer it over a partial update. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus create-federation-rule, delete-federation-rule, or update-federation-issuer, and no stated prerequisite flow such as fetching the current rule first.

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