create_eligibility_rule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the 'confirmed' parameter requirement but fails to disclose other behavioral traits such as what happens if confirmed is false, return values, error conditions, or permission requirements. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences with no extraneous words. The primary action is stated first, and the usage condition is appended clearly. It is appropriately sized for the information provided, though it could include more detail without becoming verbose.

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 5 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a PQL eligibility rule is, what the return value looks like, or how to handle errors. The sibling tools suggest a broader system context (Experience Decisioning) that is not leveraged in the 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 coverage is only 40% (2 of 5 parameters have descriptions). The description adds value by explaining that 'confirmed: true' is required to execute, which goes beyond the schema's default=false. However, it does not clarify the meaning of 'access_token' or 'description' beyond the schema defaults, leaving gaps.

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 'Create a PQL eligibility rule for Experience Decisioning,' which clearly identifies the verb (create) and resource (eligibility rule) and domain. While it distinguishes from sibling tools like create_collection or create_placement by being specific to rules, it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 includes a usage requirement: 'Requires confirmed: true to execute.' This tells the agent when the tool actually performs its action. However, it does not provide advice on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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