Create a rule

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, the description adds important behavioral context: the rule applies only to future imports and edits and does not retroactively change existing transactions. It also warns that conditions use ids, not names, which is a non-obvious constraint beyond the annotations.

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 three tightly written sentences, front-loading the core action and then layering prerequisite, parameter constraint, and scope in a logical order. Every sentence adds distinct value with no repetition or filler.

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 non-idempotent create tool with rich annotations and a fully described input schema, the description covers the key operational facts: how to learn the exact format, the id-not-name requirement for conditions, and the future-only non-retroactive scope. No output schema exists, so no return-value explanation 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds useful semantic meaning by specifying that condition fields reference accounts, categories, and payees by id rather than name. It also routes the agent to describe_rule_schema for exact parameter format, which helps with the nested conditions/actions structure.

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 and resource ('Create a rule from conditions and actions') and clarifies the scope with conditions, actions, and future applicability. It also names the required prerequisite tool, describe_rule_schema, making the purpose immediately actionable.

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?

It explicitly instructs the agent to call describe_rule_schema first for the exact format and clarifies that conditions must reference entities by id rather than name. However, it does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_rule or preview_rule_effects, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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