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: the rule keeps its id, author and creation day, so withheld notification counts persist; issues hidden by the old value return to the default list immediately and are announced again from their next event; issues matching the new value take their place. This is exactly the side-effect detail a mutation tool needs.

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?

Purpose and trigger are front-loaded, and the workflow, side effects and alternative follow in a logical order. It runs five sentences and is denser than strictly necessary, but nearly every clause carries decision-relevant 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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the prerequisites, the ordering, the preservation semantics, the immediate visibility change and the exit path to deletion. Nothing an agent needs to invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents id, field (SERVICE/ENVIRONMENT/EXCEPTION_TYPE/TITLE) and value. The description reinforces provenance of the id and the 'move it to' semantics of field/value, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 — retargeting one existing suppression rule to another field and value — and immediately frames it against the alternative (delete_suppression_rule when the rule should go entirely). An agent can distinguish it from create_suppression_rule, preview_suppression_rule and delete_suppression_rule without opening any 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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when a rule is too wide, too narrow or simply wrong') and a concrete three-step workflow naming the prerequisite tools (list_suppression_rules for ids, preview_suppression_rule to validate the target field/value). It also states the when-not case with the named alternative, delete_suppression_rule.

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