create_muting_rule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the key behavioral effect—that the tool creates a rule which suppresses alert notifications during scheduled windows—so an agent understands the outcome. However, it discloses no additional behavioral traits such as persistence, immutability, permission requirements, or response behavior, which would be valuable for a create/mutation operation without annotations.

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?

Four concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose before moving into usage and detail. Every sentence contributes relevant information, though the condition-attribute list partially duplicates the schema. No filler or vague language.

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 tool with six parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers core purpose, conditions, and schedule, but is not fully complete. It omits the MONTHLY recurrence option (despite the schema supporting it), does not clarify that schedule is optional, and gives no indication of what the response/return value is. The schema fills some gaps, but the description alone leaves an agent with questions on edge cases.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates condition attributes already listed in the schema and adds a small amount of context for how conditions and schedule are used. It does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema and slightly misleads by listing only DAILY/WEEKLY while the schema includes MONTHLY.

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 a specific verb ('Create'), a specific resource ('muting rule'), and its exact purpose ('suppress alert notifications during scheduled windows'). It also names the key matching dimensions (policies, condition names, entity attributes), which distinguishes it from sibling creation tools like create_alert_policy or create_notification_destination.

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 makes the use case explicit: use this when you need to suppress alert notifications during scheduled windows. It gives direct guidance on how to construct the rule ('Use conditions to match...', 'Use schedule for recurring windows'), and the roles of the create/list/delete muting rule siblings make the choice clear, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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