neuron_rules_set

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the persistence path (~/.neuron/rules.yaml), the precedence of rules over recipe strategies, and the asymmetric merge behavior between platform vs global/never rules. It stops short of noting failure modes or file-creation behavior if the file is absent, but the essential behavioral traits are covered.

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?

Three sentences with zero filler: purpose + file path, rule definition, then parameter/merge semantics. The most load-bearing fact (what the tool does) is front-loaded, and the final dense sentence packs combinability and merge behavior without bloat. 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?

For a 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, storage location, all parameter categories, and merge behavior — the essential decision surface an agent needs is present. Minor gaps: no expectation of the return value and no statement of when changes take effect relative to running sessions, which is modest for a config-write tool.

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%, with each parameter already documented with examples and field semantics. The description adds genuinely new meaning beyond the schema: how each category is merged (platform per-key merge, global/never full replace), that they can be combined freely, and that rules override recipe strategies — none of which appears in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb + resource pair — 'Set or update rules (~/.neuron/rules.yaml)' — and defines what rules are ('non-negotiable constraints that override recipe strategies'). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from its read counterpart neuron_rules_get and the large field of unrelated siblings.

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 clear usage context: it accepts 'any combination' of the three rule categories and details the exact merge semantics (platform rules merged per-platform; global and never replaced entirely). It does not explicitly name an alternative or state when-not-to-use, though the write-vs-read split with neuron_rules_get is strongly implied.

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