aethis_create_rulebook

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, non-idempotent). The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the object is created empty (no rulesets, no field vocabulary, no tests) with status='draft', and it requires an API key. It does not describe the returned object's shape, but with annotations carrying the safety profile this is a solid addition.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then creation-state semantics and the population workflow. Four compact sentences with little waste; the trailing auth note is useful but slightly bolted-on.

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 creation tool with 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers the essential extras: post-creation state and the follow-up workflow. The only minor gap is not describing what the create call returns.

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 all five parameters including the nested robot_hints object are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 ('Create a new Rulebook') and defines it as the composed-whole execution unit that bridges rulesets via outcome_logic. This conceptual framing distinguishes it from aethis_create_ruleset (the parts) without opening either 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 clear next-step workflow ('Populate afterwards with aethis_create_ruleset for each section, then wire up the field vocabulary and composition logic before publishing') and names a sibling. It lacks an explicit when-not or alternative-selection condition, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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