update_business_rule

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the prerequisite, but lacks details on side effects, error states (e.g., when SCRIPTING_ENABLED is false), or partial update behavior. Overall, minimal additional behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 sentence with no waste. It is front-loaded with the verb and includes a critical prerequisite. Perfectly concise for this simple tool.

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 simple update operation, the description covers the essential prerequisite. However, it does not mention that updates are partial (PATCH-like) or specify expected behavior when SCRIPTING_ENABLED is false. The schema and annotations fill some gaps, but the description could be more complete.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (sys_id, fields). The description does not add extra semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 specific resource 'business rule'. It distinguishes from create/get/list by the verb and resource name, though it does not explicitly differentiate among other update_* siblings.

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?

It mentions the prerequisite 'requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true', which is a useful condition. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_business_rule or other update tools.

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