create_rule

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

Annotations leave room for description to cover side effects (e.g., action execution on matching). The description mentions requires_approval but does not detail consequences of actions like shredding or forwarding, which could be destructive. No contradiction with 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with core purpose and a specific usage hint. No filler or redundant content.

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 complexity (5 params, nested objects, output schema), the description covers the basic flow and a key parameter hint. It lacks details on rule persistence or action schema dependencies, but the output schema likely fills gaps.

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 coverage is 100% with good descriptions. The description adds useful context for requires_approval but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond the schema for other parameters. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool creates standing instructions that auto-trigger actions based on package conditions. It distinguishes from sibling tools like request_action (manual) and add_note by focusing on automation.

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 implicitly indicates usage for automating package handling with rules, and provides explicit guidance on using requires_approval for a human review step. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like request_action.

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