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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that dry_run defaults to true and that live use requires explicit user instruction, which is valuable safety context. However, it does not state what happens on enable, whether changes are reversible, permissions required, or what 'kind' values mean, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Two tight sentences with no waste, front-loading the core action and its critical constraint. The scoping parenthetical and the preview/live rule are delivered efficiently.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the key safety behavior (preview default, explicit instruction for live) is covered. But with no annotations and 0% schema coverage across 5 parameters, the definition leaves the agent guessing on parameter values and mutation semantics.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% with 5 undocumented parameters. The description only indirectly hints at 'kind' ('documents or bank/cards') and 'dry_run' ('default preview'), while company_name and operation_key are completely unexplained. It fails to compensate for the total lack of schema documentation.

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?

States a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('automatic AI RULE CREATION'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from automatic bookkeeping via the parenthetical '(not automatic bookkeeping)'. It also names the target scope ('documents or bank/cards'), making it separable from the sibling auto-booking toggle. The only gap is that the exact nature of a 'rule' isn't detailed, but the intent is clear.

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?

Explicitly says 'Default preview; requires an explicit user instruction for live use', which tells the agent when a live mutation is permitted versus when to operate in dry-run. It also implicitly contrasts with the bookkeeping siblings. It stops short of naming an alternative tool by name, keeping it just under a 5.

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