update_business_ruleset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses the key side effect: changing the signature can invalidate existing rules that reference removed variables, and it recommends a pre-check. It does not cover other potential side effects like permissions, but the output schema covers return values.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and a concise warning. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

With an output schema present and full parameter descriptions, the description needs only to address behavioral risks. It covers the most critical risk (signature invalidation) and suggests a concrete pre-check. It does not discuss error conditions or permissions, but for a simple update tool this is largely 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?

The schema already provides complete descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage). The description adds meaningful context about the 'signature' parameter's impact (invalidating rules), which is not fully captured in the schema's 'Input/output/inOut variables' definition.

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 the specific verb 'Update' and identifies the resource ('existing SAS Business Rules rule set') and the exact fields affected ('name/description/signature'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from create_business_ruleset, delete_business_ruleset, and get_business_ruleset.

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 this tool is for modifying an existing ruleset, not for creation or deletion. It provides explicit guidance for signature changes: 'check with get_business_ruleset first if unsure,' naming a specific alternative tool for pre-verification.

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