update_acl_rule

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It notes that the rule is replaced with a 'full ACL rule configuration', indicating a full-overwrite behavior. However, it omits any mention of required permissions, reversibility, or potential side effects on related resources.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary action. It efficiently covers key parameter details in a compact four-line format without extraneous text. Minor improvement could be explicit bullet formatting for readability, but current structure meets needs.

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 that an output schema exists, return values are covered. The description provides essential parameter context but does not mention any operational constraints (e.g., host and site must exist, rule_id must be valid, or that the rule is replaced entirely). These are relevant for a mutation tool, so some completeness is missing.

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 provides zero descriptions, so the description fully compensates by explaining all four parameters: host (with accepted formats), site, rule (full configuration), and rule_id (required, with source). The only gap is the internal structure of the 'rule' object, which is left as an open schema.

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 an existing ACL rule') and the resource ('ACL rule'), and specifies identification by ID. It is distinct from create or delete operations, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives like 'create_acl_rule' or 'delete_acl_rule'.

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 instructs where to obtain the rule_id ('obtain it from list_acl_rules'), which implies this tool is for modifying an existing rule. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus creating or deleting a rule, nor does it mention any prerequisites like the rule must exist.

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