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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It usefully discloses that existing open findings matching the rule are muted immediately and that the rule auto-mutes future matching findings. It does not discuss permissions or response details, but the key side effect is clearly communicated.

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 concise sentences: purpose first, then immediate-muting behavior, then supported scope types. Every sentence adds unique, relevant information with 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?

The description adequately covers the core action, key side effects, and the three modes, complemented by a rich schema. However, since there is no output schema, it could mention what the API returns (e.g., the created rule ID). This is a minor gap, but overall the context is strong.

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 already documents every parameter thoroughly (100% coverage), including conditional requirements. The description adds a high-level mapping of the three scope modes but does not provide additional per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already states, so it earns the baseline score.

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 opens with 'Create a rule to auto-mute findings matching a pattern,' which names the specific verb, resource, and purpose. It differentiates from one-off muting tools by emphasizing this is a persistent rule and lists three distinct scope modes, making it clear what the tool does.

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 conveys that this tool is for pattern-based, persistent muting and notes the immediate effect on existing findings, which implies appropriate use cases. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like mute_finding or state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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