Append to persistent rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the rule survives boundaries, but does not disclose the mutating nature, ordering, duplicates, permissions, or whether rules can be removed. This is a significant gap for an append/mutation tool.

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 a single, compact sentence that is easily scannable. It is appropriately short, though it could still convey more useful details without becoming verbose.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two parameters, the description leaves important invocation details (e.g., what sessionId does, how rules are ordered, whether duplicates are allowed) unaddressed. The agent receives only the core purpose, not enough for full correct use.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only implies the meaning of 'rule' but does not explain the optional 'sessionId' parameter. No additional meaning is added beyond the parameter names, so the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Append') and resource ('a rule') and adds the key behavioral trait 'survives every boundary', indicating persistence. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rules_set and rules_get by the action of appending.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention rules_set, rules_get, or any scenarios where appending is preferred over setting or clearing rules.

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