spix_playbook_rule_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Add rule(s)' implies a write operation, but it does not disclose whether rules are appended, replaced, or idempotent, nor does it address authentication requirements, side effects, or rate limits. Critical context is missing.

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 a single sentence of 5 words, which is extremely concise. However, it lacks structure and could benefit from more detail. It is not verbose, but the trade-off is insufficient information for such a complex tool.

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 (2 required, 4 optional with conditional dependencies), no output schema, and no annotations, the description 'Add rule(s) to a playbook' is insufficient. The agent is not guided on how to use the two rule types (guardrail vs. objection) and their associated fields, nor on what the tool returns. Completeness is inadequate.

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% (all 6 parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The schema already explains each parameter's 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 rule(s) to a playbook' clearly states the verb 'Add' and the resource 'rule(s) to a playbook', distinguishing it from sibling tools like spix_playbook_rule_list (list rules) and other playbook actions (create, update, etc.).

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. The description does not mention prerequisites, conditionals, or exclusions (e.g., when to use spix_playbook_rule_list instead). The agent must infer from the schema and context signals.

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