rule_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose some behavior: replace semantics, testable derivation from UNTESTED tests, and the actor default. It still omits important mutation details such as permissions, error behavior when an ID already exists without replace, and return behavior.

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 compact and front-loads the main action, with no filler sentences. Some clauses, especially "UNTESTED tests derive testable=false," are terse enough to be slightly cryptic, but overall it is efficiently structured.

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?

This is a 12-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description needs to be richer. It provides a few important behavioral hints but does not explain most parameters, validation rules, side effects, or expected responses.

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% across 12 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains only replace, testable, and actor partially, leaving id, rule, test, title, source, category, evidence, applies_to, and playbook_id without added meaning.

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 clear verb and resource: "Add a rule." It also clarifies replace behavior, which helps distinguish adding from updating, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings such as rule_remove, rule_get, or rule_list.

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 phrase "replace=true explicitly updates an existing ID" gives useful guidance for updating rather than adding. However, it does not state when to choose rule_add over related tools like rule_remove, rule_get, or rules_import, so usage is only implied.

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