update_dfw_rule

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

Annotations already indicate write, non-destructive, non-idempotent behavior. The description adds value by clarifying it is a partial update (PATCH), which is beyond the annotation set. No contradictions found.

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 with a clear structure: a header '[WRITE]' followed by a docstring-style parameter list. Every sentence is necessary and adds value.

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 complexity (12 parameters, no output schema), the description covers all parameters with explanations. It lacks information about return values or error behavior, but this is not required per rules when no output schema exists.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by listing each parameter with a brief explanation (e.g., 'Parent policy identifier' for policy_id, 'New display name (optional)' for display_name). This adds meaning beyond the schema titles and types.

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 verb 'partially update' and resource 'DFW rule', specifies the HTTP method 'PATCH', and notes that only provided fields change. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_dfw_rule and delete_dfw_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 implies usage for modifying existing rules but does not explicitly provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings like create_dfw_rule or delete_dfw_rule.

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