manage_rule

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It lists actions that modify state (delete, disable) but does not mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether operations are reversible. The description is too sparse.

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 plus an enumerated list, making it efficient and front-loaded. Every element is relevant, though it could be slightly expanded without becoming verbose.

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 multi-action nature (6 actions), nested object parameter, and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return values, error conditions, or prerequisites (e.g., ruleUID required for non-create actions). Significantly more context 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?

The schema already describes ruleUID and ruleData with inline descriptions (67% coverage). The description only enumerates the action enum, adding no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 indicates the tool manages automation rules and lists specific actions (create, update, delete, enable, disable, run). It is not a tautology and differentiates from sibling tools that manage other resources like items or scenes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like query_rules. The agent must infer that this tool is for writing operations, but the description lacks explicit context.

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