create_acl

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

The description adds the important prerequisite that SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true is required, which is not present in the annotations. It also clarifies that the tool creates a persistent access rule. Since annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructiveness, the description provides extra context without contradicting the structured data.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the main action ('Create a new ACL rule') and includes the crucial prerequisite in parentheses. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 full input schema and annotations, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and the key requirement (SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true). It doesn't mention return values, but with no output schema defined, this is not critical. The tool is moderately complex (8 params), but the schema fills in the details, making the description adequate.

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 schema covers all 8 parameters with individual descriptions (100% coverage), so the parameter semantics are well documented. The description itself adds little beyond the schema, only hinting at the use case rather than explaining any parameters. Thus, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create'), names the resource ('ACL rule'), and states the purpose ('to control access to a table or field'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_acls, get_acl, and update_acl by emphasizing creation of a new rule.

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 implies when to use the tool (when creating a new ACL rule to manage access) and provides a critical prerequisite (SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use update_acl to modify an existing rule'). This gives clear context without full when-not guidance.

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