set_response_header_rules_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the critical destructive behavior: 'replaces all existing rules'. It also gives the required rule shape. It does not mention auth requirements or failure behavior, but the main side effect is explicitly stated.

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 compact: a front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a focused bullet list of rule fields. Every sentence adds necessary information, with no filler or repetition.

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 the output schema exists and there are only two top-level parameters, the description covers the essential context: replacement behavior and rule object structure. Some minor details are omitted, such as full header object semantics and ordering, but the description is sufficient for correct use.

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?

The schema only describes 'rules' as 'List of rule definitions', but the description adds the required nested structure: expression, description, action, and action_parameters with an example. This meaningfully compensates for the schema's lack of detail on rule item contents.

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 uses the specific verb 'Set' with the resource 'response header modification rules' and immediately clarifies the full-replacement behavior: 'replaces all existing rules'. This clearly distinguishes it from listing rules and from the request-header counterpart.

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 clearly establishes the usage context: this tool sets response header modification rules and replaces all existing ones. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the phrase 'response header' plus sibling tool names make the scope reasonably clear.

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