update_business_ruleset

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It warns that changing the signature can invalidate existing rules, a key side effect. But it omits other behaviors like locking requirements, permission needs, or failure modes.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states the purpose, second adds a critical warning. No wasted words, efficiently front-loads information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values don't need explanation. The description covers the action and a key consequence, but lacks discussion of error conditions, prerequisites, or when the tool might be inappropriate.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context that the tool updates name/description/signature and that signature change can invalidate rules, but this does not significantly enhance the schema descriptions.

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 action (update) and the resource (rule set's name/description/signature). It distinguishes from related tools like create and delete, but does not explicitly contrast with update_business_rule, leaving slight ambiguity.

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 provides a crucial warning about signature changes invalidating rules and suggests using get_business_ruleset first. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like create or delete, nor mentions prerequisites like existence of the ruleset.

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