arvan_create_security_rule

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

Annotations already indicate it's not read-only, not destructive, and not idempotent. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as whether creating a rule can fail, side effects, or permission requirements.

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?

Description is concise with a clear purpose sentence followed by a bulleted list of parameters. It's well-structured and front-loaded. Slightly verbose due to the list format, but still efficient.

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 create tool with 8 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description covers most but misses region. No output schema means return value is unknown. Annotations are minimal. Lacks mention of prerequisites like existing security group.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description explains most parameters (direction, protocol, port range, ips, description) with helpful details like enum values and default behavior. However, 'region' is not explained, so not all parameters are covered.

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?

Description clearly states 'Add a rule to a security group', which is a specific verb-resource combination. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like 'arvan_create_security_group' which creates the group itself, and other create tools.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to create a firewall rule vs security rule. The description only explains parameters without context on prerequisites or scenarios.

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