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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: a matched issue keeps recording events and keeps its status while being removed from the default list and all notifications, and matching is stated to be case-insensitive and literal (plain text, not a pattern). These are the exact behavioral traits an agent needs before creating a rule.

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 action and scope are front-loaded, then field semantics, then behavior, then the workflow, so it reads logically. The field-semantics sentence is dense and slightly long, but every clause carries information the agent needs, so almost nothing is wasted.

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?

With only two fully-documented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: matching rules, account-wide scope, post-creation effects, and the surrounding preview/list/alternative workflow. Nothing required to call it correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by explaining each field's matching semantics: SERVICE exact, ENVIRONMENT single-environment, EXCEPTION_TYPE prefix, TITLE substring, all case-insensitive and literal. This goes well past the schema's terse value list.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb (Add), resource (one suppression rule), and scope (the caller's whole account). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like set_issue_status, suppress_signal, and create_ignore_rule without requiring 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 explicitly routes the agent: call preview_suppression_rule first to see what would be hidden, call list_suppression_rules afterwards to check coverage, and use set_issue_status with IGNORED to silence a single issue instead. The condition selecting each alternative is stated, not inferred.

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