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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clarifies that the tool records a bypass rather than performing it, and it states a key constraint (cannot bypass constitutional rules). However, it does not mention side effects, reversibility, or what the outcome of the call is (e.g., success indicator, audit entry).

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 consists of two short, front-loaded sentences: the first states the main action, the second provides a critical constraint. Every word contributes to the value, with no redundancy or 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 simple tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential intent and a significant usage restriction. It could be more complete by stating the outcome of the call (e.g., what is logged, return value), but it is largely sufficient for an agent to select and invoke 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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters with clear descriptions ('Justification for the bypass' for reason, 'ID of the rule to bypass' for rule_id). The description's phrase 'with justification' reinforces the reason parameter but does not add substantive new meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('intentional rule bypass') with a clear qualifier ('with justification'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It inherently distinguishes itself from siblings that add, delete, or update rules by focusing on logging a bypass event.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Record an intentional rule bypass') and provides a clear exclusion ('Cannot bypass constitutional rules'). This gives the agent direct guidance on when the tool is appropriate and when it is not.

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