correlations_insert

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the overwrite behavior (same id on a tenant overwrites the existing rule), the tenant-specific nature of the id, and required permissions. It also includes the API endpoint, providing additional operational context beyond basic safety traits.

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 well-structured with a bold statement, a note, permissions, endpoint info, and an example. The example is lengthy but serves as essential documentation for the nested request structure. Every section contributes to understanding, with no redundant fluff, earning a high but not perfect score due to its length.

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?

The description covers the core aspects: purpose, behavior, permissions, endpoint, and example payload. It does not explain the return value or error scenarios, but for an insert/update tool with no output schema, this is a minor gap. The example and caveats make it sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema includes descriptions for many fields, and the description provides a comprehensive example request body that demonstrates typical values and relationships. However, the description itself does not explain individual parameters beyond the example, leaving some nuance to the schema. Since the schema coverage is incomplete for a few fields like 'dataset' and 'rule_id', the example partially compensates but does not fully replace per-parameter explanations.

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 clearly states 'Insert or update Correlation Rules' and repeats the action with 'Insert new Correlation Rules or update existing Correlation Rules.' This identifies the specific verb (insert/update) and resource (Correlation Rules), and it is distinguishable from sibling tools like correlations_get and correlations_delete.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool (creating or updating correlation rules) and includes important caveats about tenant-specific IDs and required Instance Administrator permissions. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but no other sibling tool provides this insert/update capability, so the guidance is effectively clear.

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