nemesis_create_omniguard

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

The description discloses a required dependency: 'Requires NEMESIS_API_KEY', which is beyond the annotations. It also explains the behavior of pre-loading rules based on sector/event, adding context. Annotations provide readOnly/destructive hints but do not cover auth or the functional logic, so the description adds meaningful value.

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 well-structured: main purpose first, then usage guidance, then enumerated options. The lists of sectors and events are necessary and not padded. It could be slightly shorter, but every sentence earns its place and the examples make it more accessible.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, so the description needs to cover purpose, parameters, and prerequisites. It does so, including API key and the catalog tip. It does not specify return values, but for a creation tool with no output schema, this is not a major gap. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with basic parameter descriptions. The description significantly enhances this by enumerating all valid sectors and events (which the schema only calls 'key') and explaining how they affect the generated rules. For example, it clarifies 'fintech+transfer gets AML/money-mule rules'. This adds value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create an Omniguard business-logic firewall for money & accounts'. It clearly explains what the tool does (pre-loading fraud rules for the developer's sector/event) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like nemesis_omniguard_catalog by positioning itself as the creation tool and the catalog as a prerequisite.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Call nemesis_omniguard_catalog first if unsure which to use'. This names the alternative tool and gives a clear condition. Additionally, examples (ecommerce+checkout vs fintech+transfer) illustrate when to use which sector/event combination, so an agent knows how to select parameters.

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