create_watch_rule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and usefully discloses that the route validates inputs and returns 400/422 errors, and that the wrapper passes those errors through. However, it does not cover permission requirements, idempotency/duplicate behavior, or other side effects of creating a standing rule.

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 is front-loaded with the tool's action and endpoint, then moves through gate requirements, filtering, channel requirements, and error behavior. It is appropriately sized for a complex 12-parameter creation tool and every sentence carries operational information.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is largely complete on gate construction, kind filtering, channel selection, and validation errors. It still omits the required label, enabled, and min_severity semantics, and does not discuss permissions or duplicate-rule behavior, but the output schema exists so return details need not be described.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain the key gate parameters: icao24/mmsi/callsign as identity pins, lat/lon as AOI, radius_nm defaulting to 50 nm, kinds values, channel values, and sink_url requirements. It leaves label, enabled, and min_severity unexplained, so coverage is strong but incomplete.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Create a standing watch rule', and names the underlying endpoint POST /api/alerts/rules. It clearly distinguishes creation from sibling operations like list_watch_rules and delete_watch_rule.

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 clearly states the prerequisite for a valid rule: either an identity pin or a complete AOI, and explains that kinds can be omitted to match all signals. It does not explicitly route the agent away from alternatives such as list_watch_rules or delete_watch_rule, but the creation context is unambiguous.

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