Add Attribute Rule

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context – that changes are gated, post-verified ('后验核验'), and require a confirmation phrase and precise target echo – but these terms are compressed and not fully explained.

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?

A single dense sentence with semicolons that front-loads the core action (creating the rule) before the constraints. No filler, though the compression makes some clauses hard to parse.

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 complex 18-parameter destructive mutation with an output schema present, the description is minimal – it names the gating/confirmation behavior but gives no coverage of the many configuration parameters (rule_type, triggering_events, subtypes, severity, etc.). Adequate but leaves significant gaps.

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?

With 18 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters, yet it only obliquely references two of them ('目标精确回显' for expected_dataset and '固定确认短语' for confirmation). The other 16 parameters receive no semantic help at all.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('创建受约束属性规则' – create constrained attribute rules) and names the underlying official operation (AddAttributeRule). It is distinguishable from siblings like delete/list/export/import_attribute_rules, though '受约束' (constrained) is left undefined.

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 hints at invocation prerequisites – '方案变更双门' (dual gate for schema change) and '固定确认短语' (fixed confirmation phrase) – which implies this is a gated mutation, but it never states when to prefer this over siblings such as import_attribute_rules or list_attribute_rules. Usage is only implied.

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