Set persistent rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the tool replaces rules and that those rules persist across boundaries, which gives some behavioral context. However, it does not clarify whether it clears all previous rules, how rules are scoped, or any side effects. Some transparency exists but lacks detail.

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, focused sentence that conveys the core purpose without extra words. It is concise and front-loaded, with every part contributing meaning.

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?

Given the simple tool (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate for basic understanding but incomplete. Missing details like parameter semantics and a explicit statement that it overwrites all existing rules reduce completeness. It does not fully cover the behavioral nuances an agent would need for correct invocation.

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%, and the description does not explain the parameters. The 'rules' parameter's name and the description suggest it holds the rule content, but there is no detail about formatting, allowed values, or the optional 'sessionId'. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Replace' and clearly identifies the resource as 'CLAUDE.md-equivalent rules that survive every boundary.' This distinguishes it from siblings like rules_append and rules_get, which have different actions. The purpose is immediately clear.

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 implies usage by saying 'Replace', which suggests this tool is for overwriting rules, contrasting with rules_append. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Guidance is only implied, not explicit.

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