update_rule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: partial field edits are not merged, edits apply to future events only, and the rule's error state is cleared. This goes beyond the minimum but doesn't cover every edge case (e.g., not found behavior, permissions), so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the tool's core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action, the second explains the two usage modes and the non-merging rule, and the third notes the temporal scope and side effect. No filler or redundancy.

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 (8 parameters, nested objects) and lack of output schema or annotations, the description provides a solid high-level context: update modes, required fields, and side effects. It doesn't explicitly mention how to obtain the rule_id or what the response is, but these are relatively self-evident given the schema and sibling tools. The description is complete enough for correct usage.

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's top-level properties have no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that `enabled` can be used alone as a toggle, while a full update requires `name`, `trigger`, `actions`, and optionally `conditions`/`node_id`. This clarifies the parameter relationships and the non-merge semantics, which the schema alone doesn't convey.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('automation rule'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing the update action and the unique toggle behavior. The phrase 'automation rule' is precise and unambiguous.

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 gives explicit usage guidance by separating the toggle mode ('pass only `enabled`') from the full-replacement mode ('otherwise pass the FULL new shape'). It also warns that partial edits are not merged. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like create_rule, the update vs create distinction is implicit and the mode selection is clear.

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