update_action_rule

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

The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: PATCH partial-update semantics and a write-permission requirement. Annotations already indicate a non-read, non-idempotent operation, so the description adds context without contradicting it.

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?

One front-loaded sentence conveys purpose, HTTP method, partial-update semantics, and permission requirements with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Together with the fully documented schema, the description gives enough context for an agent to call the tool correctly. It lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer set_action_rule_status for toggling enabled state, but that is a routing nicety rather than a blocking gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 11 parameters. The description reinforces the partial-update behavior but does not add meaning to specific parameters beyond what the input schema provides.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('action rule'), plus the HTTP method ('PATCH'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling create/get/delete action-rule tools. 'Only provided fields are sent' further clarifies the operation mode.

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 intended use is implied: modify an existing action rule. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives like set_action_rule_status, which overlaps with the enabled field.

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