arvan_create_rate_limit_rule

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive, which is consistent with a create operation. However, the description adds no further behavioral context, such as side effects, idempotency, or prerequisites.

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 concise, consisting of one sentence and a list of examples. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. No unnecessary words, though the formatting could be slightly improved.

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's complexity (2 parameters, one nested object) and the lack of output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It does not clarify that the domain is the target for the rule or describe the expected result of creation.

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 description provides example fields for the 'rule' object (url, method, count, duration, action), compensating for the schema's low coverage (0% description). However, it does not explain the 'domain' parameter, leaving its semantics partially ambiguous.

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 'Create a rate-limit rule' which clearly identifies the action (create) and resource (rate-limit rule). It differentiates from sibling tools like list and delete, but lacks explicit mention that the rule is associated with a domain, though the domain parameter implies it.

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. Siblings like 'arvan_delete_rate_limit_rule' and 'arvan_list_rate_limit_rules' exist, but the description does not help the agent choose between them.

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