update_rule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. '更新规则内容' implies a mutation operation but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what permissions are needed, whether changes are reversible, or what happens on success/failure. For a write tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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 extremely concise—a single phrase in Chinese. While this is efficient, it borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness. It's front-loaded but lacks the depth needed for a mutation tool. The structure is minimal, with no wasted words, but could benefit from additional context.

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's complexity (a mutation operation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'updating rule content' entails, what the return value might be, or how it differs from other update tools. For a write tool in a context with multiple siblings, this minimal description fails to provide adequate context.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters ('id', 'content', 'description') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples, format details, or constraints). Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 '更新规则内容' (update rule content) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'update_rule' in Chinese. While it indicates the action (update) and target (rule content), it doesn't specify what aspect of the rule is being updated or distinguish this tool from its sibling 'update_document' or 'update_project'. It's minimally informative but lacks specificity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a rule ID), differentiate from similar tools like 'update_document' or 'update_project', or indicate when not to use it (e.g., for creating vs. updating rules). With multiple update-related siblings in the list, this absence of context is a significant gap.

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