Manage EMQX ACL Rules

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is mutating and potentially destructive. The description adds that operations are create/delete/read and specifies the resource is built-in-database. However, it does not detail consequences of delete, permission requirements, or side effects beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. No redundant phrases; every word serves to define scope and operations.

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?

With output schema present and annotations covering safety profile, the description provides adequate context for a 4-parameter tool. It identifies the specific resource type and available operations. Minor gap: no mention of parameter interactions (e.g., which params are needed for which operation), but schema descriptions likely handle that.

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?

All four parameters have schema descriptions with 100% coverage. The description contributes by enumerating valid operations (create, delete, read), which the operation parameter references ('see the tool description'). This adds meaning beyond the schema's generic 'Action to perform'.

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?

Clearly states 'Read and write built-in-database ACL rules that decide which topics a user or client may publish to and subscribe to.' This specifies the verb (read/write), resource (built-in-database ACL rules), and subject (user/client topic permissions). It also enumerates operations (create, delete, read), distinguishing it from sibling authz tools that manage sources or settings.

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 says 'Operations enabled on this server: create, delete, read,' which indicates what actions can be performed but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like emqx_authz_settings or emqx_list_authz_sources. The context of 'built-in-database ACL rules' implies usage for that specific rule store, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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