User rules

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false with destructiveHint=false; the description adds the crucial lifecycle detail that a proposed rule is queued and requires user approval in the panel, web page, or CLI rather than taking effect immediately. It also flags a safety exclusion (no secrets). It stops short of saying what 'show' returns or how approved rules affect later sessions.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with what the resource is before the action semantics and the exclusions. Dense but no filler; the 'action show ... action propose' parallel is easy to scan. Slightly compressed phrasing ('as injected at session start') takes a moment to parse.

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?

With no output schema, the definition still conveys the propose workflow, approval step, and scope of the rule set, which is what an agent needs to choose an action. It never says what 'show' returns (full list, per-scope breakdown, formatting), which is the one real gap for a read action with no output schema.

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 coverage is 80% and the schema already documents scope semantics, mode default, text length, and reason. The description only ties action values to outcomes ('show' returns them, 'propose' queues), adding little on scope or mode beyond the enum descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Names the resource precisely ('the user's standing rules for this project, organization and device') and enumerates the two verbs via action values: 'show' returns them, 'propose' queues a new rule. It also distinguishes the tool from the nearby sibling by name ('Preferences ... go to the taste tool instead'), so an agent can route without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use conditions: propose only for 'a rule the user explicitly asked to make standing'. Explicit when-not and alternatives: conversational preferences go to the taste tool, and 'Never propose secrets or one-off instructions'. This is the strongest dimension of the definition.

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