resource_deviation_add

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows it mutates state. The description adds that this is a policy override (default forbidden, declaration allows), which is useful context. However, it doesn't detail side effects, reversibility, or required permissions beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a tool whose parameters are fully documented in the schema.

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 mutation tool with a fully documented schema and safety annotations, the description conveys the core purpose and permission rule. It falls short on when to use it relative to sibling tools and what effects the deviation declaration has, leaving some 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds no syntax or format detail for any parameter and may even imply a 'criterion' parameter that does not exist in the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (声明/declare) and resource (偏离/deviation) and explains that the deviation is from a validation criterion, with the default-disallow rule. It does not explicitly contrast with resource_deviation_list or resource_deviation_remove, but the add action is clear from the name and text.

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 provides a clear condition for use: deviations are disallowed by default and this declaration is what permits them. It does not name alternative tools or when not to use, but the context is sufficient to know this is for intentional exceptions.

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