add_atc_rule

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

With no annotations, the description bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the two route types and their behavior, but does not mention potential side effects like duplicate handling, validation, or limits. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 three sentences with no unnecessary words, front-loading the purpose and then providing key usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core concepts and provides essential references to other tools. It could mention what the response looks like, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the routeType meanings ('save rules route saved links to a space; open rules open matching URLs') and directing the agent to auxiliary tools for IDs. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 starts with 'Create a new Air Traffic Control rule', using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes two rule types (save and open), which helps differentiate from sibling tools like list_atc_rules, update_atc_rule, or delete_atc_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 explicitly tells the agent to use list_browser_profiles for profile IDs and list_spaces for space IDs, providing clear context for tool invocation. It does not specify when not to use this tool, but for a creation tool, the guidance is adequate.

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