Create rule action

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

Annotations already disclose the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — nothing about permissions, side effects, or what happens to the parent rule. It does list fields, but that is parameter, not behavioral, information.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the field list. No padding. The parenthetical enum values are useful, though the list format is slightly terse.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a mutation tool, the description omits prerequisites (must the referenced rule exist?), permission requirements, and when to choose this over updating an existing action. Field names are covered, but operational context is thin.

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's single "input" object is loosely typed (additionalProperties with no defined nested fields), so the description's enumeration of rules_id, action_type, field, and value is genuinely compensating. It also supplies the action_type enum values (assign/regex_result/append_regex_result), which the schema omits (enums: 0). This adds real meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: "Create a new action for a rule." This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like glpi_update_rule_action or glpi_list_rule_actions by the verb. It does not explicitly name siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., an existing rule/rules_id), and no mention of alternatives such as glpi_update_rule_action or glpi_create_rule_criteria. The agent must infer all routing from the name alone.

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