create_comparison_rule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only discloses the requirement for `confirm: true` but fails to mention other behavioral aspects such as whether the operation is destructive, idempotent, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a creation 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 very short and to the point, with no redundant information. However, it is too sparse for the complexity of the tool, sacrificing necessary detail for brevity. A better balance is needed.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and the complexity of setting comparison rules (e.g., valid values for mode, how selector works), the description is far from complete. It provides only minimal context, leaving agents likely to misuse the tool.

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 has zero descriptions and 6 parameters. The description only adds meaning for 'mode' (by listing rule types) and hints at 'confirm: true'. Other parameters (project, scenarioLabel, selector, reason) remain unexplained, leaving significant 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 clearly states the action ('Add a VRT comparison rule') and the target ('on a scenario'). It also lists the types of rules. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools, though no sibling appears to duplicate this function.

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 mentions 'Requires confirm: true', which is a usage condition, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. No when/not directives are given.

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