Create ERDL Rule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the rule is saved to ~/.openoba/rules/ and takes effect immediately with no restart needed. While it could mention potential side effects like overwriting existing rules, the provided information is adequate for understanding the basic 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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by relevant example scenarios. It is concise (three short paragraphs) and front-loaded, though the examples could be slightly trimmed. No unnecessary information is present.

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 6 parameters (4 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core use case and provides examples. However, it lacks information about return values (e.g., rule ID or success message) and error conditions. This is a minor gap, resulting in an adequate but not comprehensive description.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description provides example scenarios that map natural language to category and decision, but does not add detailed semantics beyond what the schema provides. The examples help contextualize parameter usage, which justifies the baseline score.

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 clearly states 'Create a new ERDL rule from natural language.' and provides specific example scenarios that illustrate the tool's purpose. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like erdl_evaluate, erdl_explain, erdl_list_rules, and erdl_simulate.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when the user corrects your behavior and wants you to "remember" it.' This provides clear guidance on when to invoke this tool versus alternatives, and the example scenarios further illustrate appropriate usage.

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