kaiten_create_sla_rule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the create action; it does not disclose whether the rule takes effect immediately, what happens if sla_id is invalid, whether existing rules are affected, or any permission requirements. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It delivers the core verb-resource-object relationship immediately. It is near the lower bound of acceptable length but earns conciseness points for efficiency, even though some of that brevity comes at the cost of missing guidance.

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 a 7-parameter create operation with a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, this one-sentence description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an SLA rule is, how the measurement fields (start_column_uid, finish_column_uid, estimated_time) interrelate, what the notification_settings object requires, or what the response will contain. The agent is left to guess at both semantics and success criteria.

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%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters, including notification_settings as 'Notification configuration for the rule.' The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies. However, the nested object's internal structure remains underspecified in both places.

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 clear verb ('create') and resource ('a rule within an SLA policy'), giving the parent context that distinguishes it from card-level SLA operations like kaiten_attach_card_sla and from kaiten_update_sla_rule/kaiten_delete_sla_rule via the verb. It stops short of a 5 because it doesn't explicitly name those siblings or the distinguishing conditions.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Nothing disambiguates it from kaiten_create_sd_sla, kaiten_attach_card_sla, or kaiten_recalculate_sla, and no prerequisites or preconditions (e.g., needing an existing SLA policy) are mentioned. The only contextual hint is the phrase 'within an SLA policy,' which is implicit rather than instructive.

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