fraud_add_rule

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

Without annotations, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states an action ('add') without detailing side effects, success conditions, error states, or idempotency. This is insufficient given the lack of annotations.

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?

While a single sentence is concise, it is under-specified. The description should include more details to be useful, violating the principle that every sentence must earn its place. Brevity here sacrifices clarity.

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 13 parameters, no parameter documentation, and no hints about the output schema, the description is grossly inadequate. The tool likely requires significant context (e.g., profileid meaning, threshold semantics) that the description omits.

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%, meaning the description adds no information about parameters. It does not explain the meaning of fields like profileid, prefix, cpm_warning, etc., leaving the agent to guess their purpose.

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 'Add a new fraud detection rule' clearly states the action and resource, distinguishing from sibling fraud tools like delete, list, update, and reload. However, it lacks any additional context that would differentiate it from similar 'add' tools for other entities.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fraud_update_rule or fraud_reload. The description does not mention prerequisites or scenarios where adding a rule is appropriate.

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