update_business_rule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update an existing rule,' which implies mutation but does not explain whether updates are incremental or full replacements, whether special permissions or locks are needed, or what side effects occur. This is a significant gap for a complex mutation tool.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, containing no filler or redundant information. It is as concise as possible while still conveying the core purpose.

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?

Despite having an output schema and a detailed input schema, the description is too sparse for a tool with 7 required parameters. It does not provide context about update semantics, prerequisites, or interaction with rule sets. The provided description alone would not sufficiently guide an agent on how to correctly construct an update call.

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?

The input schema provides detailed descriptions for all 7 parameters (e.g., 'The specific rule UUID to update,' 'List of conditions (multiple conditions AND together)'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter context, so it gets the baseline score of 3.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'an existing rule inside a SAS Business Rules rule set,' which distinguishes it from create/delete operations. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or contrast with sibling tools like create_business_rule, so it lacks full differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus create_business_rule or other rule-related tools. The word 'existing' implies it is for modifying an already-created rule, but there is no explicit context or exclusion criteria.

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