Create rate-limit rule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the '[WRITE]' tag is redundant with structured data. Beyond that the description adds nothing about side effects, idempotency, permission requirements, whether the rule takes effect immediately, or interaction with existing rules — meaningful gaps for a mutating tool.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation type and endpoint, with no filler. The brevity is efficient even though the content is thin.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with a nested object (action_details), zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It names fields but never equips the agent to supply valid values, and it omits any indication of what the call returns or what happens on success.

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 0% across 12 parameters, so the description carries the full burden — and it only recites parameter names ('Official samples include url_pattern, rate, time_duration...') without any semantics. Units for rate/time_duration/burst/block_duration, the meaning of action and action_details, and the format of exclude_sources/allowed_methods are all unexplained.

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 identifies a write operation against a specific REST endpoint (POST /domains/{domain}/rate-limit/rules), which does convey the resource and the mutation intent. However, it never explains what a rate-limit rule is or what creating one accomplishes, so it largely restates the tool name plus the URL. The create_ prefix in the name already does most of the sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus update_rate_limit_rule, list_rate_limit_rules, or update_rate_limit_settings, nor any prerequisites (domain existence, plan limits, ordering relative to reprioritize_rate_limit_rules). The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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