rules

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the core action (add/remove rule profiles) but doesn't explain what rule profiles are, what effects the changes have, or what permissions might be required. The dangerous nature of the 'force' parameter is documented in the schema, not the description.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema documentation and wastes no words on repetition or unnecessary elaboration.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but functional. It states what the tool does, but doesn't provide context about what rule profiles are, what happens after modification, or error conditions. Given the complexity of modifying project configuration, more context would be helpful.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain what rule profiles are, why you'd add/remove them, or how they affect the project.

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 action ('add or remove') and resource ('rule profiles from the project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its many siblings, particularly those like 'add_dependency' or 'add_tag' that also perform addition operations on different resources.

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. With 35 sibling tools including various 'add_' and 'remove_' operations, there's no indication of what makes 'rule profiles' different from other project elements or when this specific tool is appropriate.

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