update_rule

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

Annotations only provide a title, so the description carries the burden. It discloses partial-update behavior ('Only fields you pass are updated; omit a field to leave it untouched') and explains live_mode semantics. It stops short of describing failure modes or advanced side effects, but is quite transparent overall.

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 four sentences, each earning its place: core purpose and partial update, main use cases, sibling guidance, and live_mode semantics with prerequisite. It is front-loaded and free of filler.

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, full schema coverage, and available output schema, the description covers selection-relevant aspects: purpose, alternatives, partial-update behavior, live_mode values, and deployment prerequisite. No critical selection or invocation guidance seems missing.

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% with useful per-parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema, clarifying that omitted fields remain untouched and explaining live_mode's null/'observe'/'auto' values and broker requirements.

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 opens with 'Edit an existing systematic trading rule,' clearly identifying the verb and resource. It also explicitly distinguishes from the sibling toggle_rule by stating 'For just toggling active/inactive, prefer toggle_rule (clearer intent).'

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 provides explicit use cases: 'Use to retune a trigger threshold, change the action, rename, reprioritize, or flip activation.' It also gives a clear when-not alternative via toggle_rule and mentions the broker prerequisite for live_mode.

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