update_guardrail

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

The description discloses that updating creates a new version that takes effect immediately for dependent configs, and returns specific identifiers. This adds value beyond annotations (which are minimal). However, it does not cover potential side effects like cascading impacts or permission requirements.

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 (two sentences) with front-loaded purpose and sibling distinction. Every sentence adds value: first defines the action, second explains versioning and returns. No 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, nested objects), the description covers the main effect (new version, immediate impact) and suggests reviewing list_guardrails. Output schema exists (implicitly), so return values are adequately stated. Missing minor details like validation or permission mentions, but overall sufficient.

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 100% schema description coverage, the description adds little semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides for parameters. It mentions updating name, checks, or actions, but the schema already details each parameter. The description's focus on return values does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 states the tool updates a guardrail's name, checks, or actions, and distinguishes itself from create_guardrail and delete_guardrail. It also specifies the return values (id, slug, version_id), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (updating guardrails) and advises reviewing list_guardrails first. It mentions creating a new version and immediate effect, but does not explicitly exclude scenarios where update should not be used (e.g., if no changes needed).

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