update_business_rule

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., that the update overwrites the entire rule or requires all fields to be provided). Given the annotations cover the essential traits, the description is adequate but does not enrich understanding beyond them.

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 redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and every word contributes to the meaning, achieving maximum efficiency.

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 moderate complexity (7 required parameters) and the presence of a detailed input schema plus an output schema, the description is sufficient. It specifies the resource type and operation, and the schema covers parameter semantics. It does not explain edge cases or prerequisites, but the schema and annotations provide adequate context for a simple update operation.

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 description coverage is 100% for all 7 parameters, so the schema alone clearly documents each field. The tool description does not provide any additional parameter-level meaning or context, matching the baseline of 3 for high coverage without extra description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and clearly identifies the resource ('existing rule inside a SAS Business Rules rule set'), aligning with the tool's name and distinguishing it from sibling operations like create or delete. It is unambiguous and specific.

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 implies usage for updating an existing rule, and the tool name plus required rule_id and ruleset_id make the context clear. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is evident from the wording and sibling tools, meeting the criteria for clear context without explicit exclusions.

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