update_business_rule

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions 'update' which implies mutation but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, atomicity, validations, or side effects. The description fails to provide transparency beyond the basic operation.

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundant information. It gets straight to the point, earning its place without waste.

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 has 7 required parameters and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain that all parameters are required, nor does it provide context on parameters like 'conditional' or the relationship between 'rule_id' and 'ruleset_id'. An output schema exists, but the description should still cover key usage points.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 7 parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description 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 an existing rule inside a rule set, differentiating it from create_business_rule and delete_business_rule. The verb 'update' and specific resource 'rule inside a SAS Business Rules rule set' are precise.

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 implicitly indicates usage for updating existing rules, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_business_rule or delete_business_rule. No context on prerequisites or exclusive cases.

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