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

While annotations define the safety profile (destructive), the description adds critical functional behavior: the rule can be created by copying an existing resource or by submitting a full custom payload. This logic is key behavioral context not found in the schema or annotations.

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 definition is highly concise and immediately front-loads the necessary context (target identification, then method of application). Every word serves a functional purpose in explaining the tool's logic.

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?

Given the complexity of having five optional parameters that serve three logical functions (Target selection, Copy selection, or New creation), the description is perfectly complete. It clarifies the mental model required to call the tool correctly.

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?

Since schema coverage is 0%, the description must carry the full burden. It brilliantly explains the logic connecting the parameters—that the ID/UUID pair dictates whether the rule is copied or created from scratch—adding immense value beyond just listing the fields.

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 clearly states the resource ('rules') and the action ('apply rules to a website'). It also defines the logical scope of operation, indicating how the website is identified (ID or UUID).

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 provides clear usage guidance by outlining the two distinct execution paths: either copy a stored rule using its ID/UUID, or provide a completely new rule payload. This guides the agent on which parameters to populate based on the goal.

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