Create Health Rule

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral details: it creates a new rule, returns the object with ID, requires at least one condition, and explains metric path differences per entity type. No contradictions. Could mention permissions, but overall good.

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 somewhat long but well-structured with sections for APM, SIM, operators, and an example. It front-loads the core purpose and requirements (application, name, entity type, critical conditions). Every sentence serves a purpose, though could be slightly tightened.

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 13 parameters and no output schema, the description covers creation details well: return value, entity types, metric path rules, and conditions structure. It addresses both common and edge cases (CUSTOM entity for SIM). Missing error handling (e.g., duplicate name) but covers essential context for an agent to invoke correctly.

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% (baseline 3), but the description adds significant value beyond the schema. It explains metric path formats for APM (relative) vs SIM (absolute), provides an example, clarifies that affectedNode overrides affectedTier, and notes which entity types require which parameters. This substantially aids correct parameter usage.

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 states 'Create a new health rule for an application' with specific supported entity types (APM, SIM) and a clear requirement for at least one critical condition. It distinguishes from siblings like update/enable/delete health rules, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 provides extensive guidance: it explains when to use different entity types (APM vs SIM), how to construct metric paths for each, and includes examples. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool, the context of creation vs updating is clear from siblings.

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