create_price_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 only states that a new price rule is created, but does not disclose side effects, whether the operation is reversible, required permissions, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 that is front-loaded with the core action. It is concise and free of fluff. However, it is so brief that it omits any supplemental context, which prevents a perfect score. Still, it earns a 4 for being appropriately sized and immediately understandable.

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 the tool has 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is quite thin. It does not explain what the created price rule will do beyond 'automatic discounts', nor does it mention return values, required fields, or how to configure the rule. The schema provides parameter details, but the overall context is incomplete.

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?

The input schema covers all 10 parameters with descriptions, so schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no parameter information. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting. The schema descriptions are clear enough, so no deduction is taken.

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 'Create a new price rule for automatic discounts' clearly identifies the action (create) and resource (price rule), and adds context that it is for automatic discounts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_price_rule, update_price_rule, and delete_price_rule. It could be more specific about the type of price rules or discount behavior, but it is not a tautology.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_price_rule for existing rules, or get_price_rules to list). It does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. An agent would have no context on when creating a price rule is appropriate.

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