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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine runtime context the annotations cannot convey: rules are evaluated only during workflow runs, and the judge receives the connection's Dictionary and Features plus the run's Idea. It stops short of describing validation failures, effect on in-flight runs, or permissions.

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 sentences, purpose front-loaded before the runtime explanation. The second sentence is dense and slightly convoluted ('where the judge is given ... automatically') but every clause carries information rather than filler.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema and four fully documented parameters, the description covers what is created, where it lands, its default severity, and when it is enforced. It could say more about failure behavior and whether new rules affect existing runs, but nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes one step further by stating that 'must' is the default level, a fact the schema does not encode (the enum lists both values with no default). Its 'one narrow statement' phrasing duplicates the schema's wording for text, adding nothing there.

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 and resource ('Add a rule') plus placement semantics ('to the end of a ruleset'), which cleanly separates it from update_rule, delete_rule, and create_ruleset. It also notes the default level, so an agent knows the shape of the created record without opening the schema.

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 supplies meaningful usage context ('Rules run only inside workflow runs') which tells the agent when rules actually take effect. However, it never routes the agent between alternatives (update_rule for edits, create_ruleset for containers) and gives no explicit when-not-to-use condition, so guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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