aethis_create_ruleset

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

Annotations already disclose the write profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the safety burden is partly carried elsewhere. The description adds the required-test-cases constraint and the follow-up generation step, but says nothing about duplicate-creation risk from non-idempotency, permissions, or what the created artifact looks like.

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 action and immediately followed by the precondition and the next tool. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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 fairly complex tool (7 params, nested test_cases, optional contract_version and expected_review_bindings) with no output schema, the description covers the creation-to-generation flow but omits how the response should be interpreted and when the optional expectation-related parameters matter. It is minimally adequate given the strong schema coverage rather than complete.

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 seven parameters including the nested test_cases shape are already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description echoes that source_text and test_cases are inputs but adds no format, sizing, or conditional-requirement detail (e.g., contract_version being required when expectations are supplied).

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 rule ruleset with source text and test cases') and flags the TDD framing, so an agent knows this bootstraps a ruleset from source text plus tests. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling aethis_create_rulebook, so the boundary between the two creation tools is left implicit.

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?

Adds real workflow guidance: 'Test cases are required' and 'After creation, call aethis_generate_and_test' tells the agent both a hard precondition and the mandatory next step. It stops short of naming when to prefer this over aethis_create_rulebook or aethis_set_tests, so no exclusions or alternatives are given.

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