update_warning_rule

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source for behavioral traits. It only states 'update alarm rule' without disclosing whether updates are partial or full, what happens to omitted fields, or if the operation requires existing rules. This lack of detail limits transparency.

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 short phrase, which is concise but overly terse. It lacks structure and fails to provide essential context. Conciseness should not come at the expense of completeness.

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 5 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the update behavior, required fields (id), or potential side effects. More complete information is needed for effective tool use.

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 covers all 5 parameters with descriptions in Chinese, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema provides. A score of 3 is baseline given the high schema coverage.

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 '更新报警规则' (update alarm rule) clearly identifies the action and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_warning_rule or delete_warning_rule. However, it merely restates the tool name in Chinese, adding minimal new information.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives, such as create_warning_rule for new rules or get_warning_rule_by_id for viewing. There is no context on prerequisites or conditions.

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