prom_add_rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Add', implying mutation, but does not explain whether it writes to files, requires the api_key, overwrites existing rules, validates syntax, or what side effects occur. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 extremely short with no filler words, and the core action is front-loaded. However, it is arguably under-specified for a mutation tool, so it is concise but not fully informative.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly. It omits where rules are added, what format is expected, whether the api_key is required for authentication, and what happens after execution.

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 only 50%, with api_key lacking any schema description, yet the tool description mentions neither parameter. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent to guess what 'directory' and 'api_key' are used for in the context of adding rules.

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 a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('recording and alerting rules'), which clearly conveys the tool's core function. It is distinct from siblings like prom_generate_config and prom_generate_dashboards, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from related alerting tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as grafana_add_alerts, alert_generate_prometheus, or monitor_create_alerts. It provides no context about prerequisites, target configuration, or whether it should be run before/after related steps.

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