Update Chat Rule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and supplies almost nothing. It does not disclose that this is a partial update (only rule_id and workspace_name are required, all other fields nullable/optional), whether omitted fields are preserved, whether rule_content markdown is validated, or any permission requirements for the mutation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. It is arguably terse to the point of under-informing, but it wastes no words.

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?

A 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no explicit guidance is under-described; a present output schema means returns need not be explained, but the description fails to cover partial-update semantics, required vs optional field behavior, or authorization context. The agent lacks enough to call this safely beyond the raw schema.

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 100%, so every one of the 7 parameters is documented in the schema (name, scope_id, is_active, scope_type, rule_content, rule_id, workspace_name). The description only adds a restatement of the ID lookup and no extra semantics such as how scope_type/scope_id interact as a pair. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('chat rule') plus the ID-based lookup, which is enough to distinguish it from create_chat_rule or list_chat_rules by name alone. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling, but the action-resource pairing 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. needing an existing rule_id from get_chat_rule or list_chat_rules), and no routing to alternatives like update_chat_command. The agent must infer all usage context from the name.

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