Generate editor AI rules

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

The description implies file generation but does not explicitly state that files are written to disk or the overwrite behavior. Annotations are all false, and the description does not contradict them. Basic behavioral context is present, but more detail about side effects would improve 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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. The list of editors is relevant but somewhat lengthy. No superfluous text, though it could be slightly tighter.

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 output schema, the description should explain return values or success behavior, but it does not. It covers parameter purposes well via schema, but missing output details makes it less complete for a tool with 9 parameters.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only listing editors which are already in the enum. It does not elaborate on parameter usage or constraints.

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 it generates AI rule files for specific editors, listing supported editors explicitly. The verb 'generate' and resource 'editor AI rules' are specific and distinguish it from the sibling 'generate_rules' tool by focusing on editors.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'generate_rules'. It lacks explicit context for when or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name.

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