add_exclusion_rule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive nature ('hard-deletes') and blocking behavior, but lacks details on reversibility, permission requirements, or what happens on conflicts. The description provides adequate but not thorough 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 extremely concise—two sentences. It front-loads the key information (version, action, effect) and avoids any filler. Every sentence earns its place, making it efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and effects. However, it lacks information about return values, error handling, or confirmation, leaving gaps in understanding the full interaction. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 input schema already describes all four parameters with clear descriptions (100% coverage). The description does not add new insights beyond the schema; it references 'scope' and 'pattern' implicitly but does not clarify format, defaults, or behavior beyond what the schema states. Baseline score applies.

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 ('Add'), the resource ('content-pattern exclusion rule'), and the effects ('Hard-deletes existing matches' and 'write-blocks future ones'). It also includes version context and differentiates from the v1 behavior, making the purpose very specific and distinguishable from 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 implies the tool is for adding exclusion rules and mentions the scope of effect (past/future), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_exclusion' or 'remove_exclusion_rule'. No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use is provided.

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