Record a rule

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

Annotations already declare the write profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the safety bar is lower. However, the description adds essentially nothing beyond that: it does not say whether this creates or upserts, what happens to an existing rule with the same name, or what permissions are required.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized as a sentence, though its brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being tight-but-complete.

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?

For an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. It omits the parameter semantics and repository-scoping mechanics an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 8 parameters, so the description carries the full burden, yet it documents none of them. Critical fields such as name, type, status, rule_id, severity, applies_to, and repo_path are left entirely to bare titles with no meaning added.

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 specific verb (Record) and a precisely scoped resource (repository-scoped normative rule), which distinguishes it from siblings like record_decision, record_task_lesson, and record_task_observation. It is clear but does not explicitly name or contrast with those 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, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. With eleven record_/prepare_/get_ siblings an agent gets no help deciding whether a normative rule belongs here versus record_decision or record_task_lesson.

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