create_reporting_rule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the purpose, not side effects, permissions, reversibility, or consequences of creation (e.g., whether it overwrites existing rules, requires prior configuration, or returns a rule ID). This is a significant gap for a mutating create operation.

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 a single sentence that is succinct and front-loaded with the action. It contains no fluff, but it is also quite sparse. It earns a 4 because it is concise without being overly terse for a tool of this simplicity.

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?

Despite the schema fully documenting parameters, the description lacks essential context: no usage scenarios, no indication of output or errors, and no clarification of how this tool fits into a workflow with sibling tools. For a create operation with no annotations, the description should provide more functional guidance.

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 provides 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for all 4 fields, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a high-level context ('define when agents are considered unhealthy') but does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond what the schema already specifies.

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 verb 'Create' and the specific resource 'reporting rule', and adds the purpose 'to define when agents are considered unhealthy'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_config or update_reporting_rule, which target different resources or actions.

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. It doesn't mention that it's for creating new rules as opposed to updating existing ones, nor does it note any prerequisites or exclusions. A 2 is appropriate because the context is entirely implied by the tool's name.

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