create_auto_asset_tag

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It states the tool creates a rule but doesn't disclose whether this is a persistent configuration, requires specific permissions, has side effects on existing assets, or how the rule is triggered. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every element ('Create a new rule', 'automatically tag assets', 'based on specified conditions', 'for Linux, Windows, and macOS') contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 that creates configuration rules with 4 complex parameters (involving nested ConditionGroup objects) and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (e.g., rule activation, tagging behavior), error conditions, or relationship to other tools like 'list_auto_asset_tags'. With no annotations and rich parameter schema, more context is needed.

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 schema fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying the rule applies to multiple OS types, which is already clear from the parameter names. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Create a new rule') and the resource ('automatically tag assets'), specifying the scope ('for Linux, Windows, and macOS'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_tags_to_assets' by focusing on rule-based automation rather than direct tagging, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'create_triage_rule' or 'update_auto_asset_tag'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_tags_to_assets' (for manual tagging) or 'create_triage_rule' (for triage automation). The description implies usage for automated tagging based on conditions but offers no context on prerequisites, dependencies, or exclusions.

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