Create chaos rule

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds the conceptual scope of chaos effects, but says nothing about whether the rule takes effect immediately, persistence across sessions, required permissions, or duplicate-name behavior beyond what annotations imply.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded and waste-free. The first sentence restates the title/name almost verbatim, which is mild redundancy, but the second earns its place by explaining the effect domain.

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?

This is a 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and only 57% schema coverage, yet the description covers none of the practical concerns an agent needs: how url_pattern matches, whether the rule is active on creation, or whether name must be unique. It is under-specified for the tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is 57% and the description contributes no parameter-level detail whatsoever. The parameters lacking schema descriptions (name, enabled, url_pattern) are largely self-explanatory, so the baseline of 3 applies, but the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Create a chaos rule') and the second sentence clarifies the domain by enumerating the kinds of degradation chaos injects. It never distinguishes this tool from its obvious siblings (create_mock_rule, create_rewrite_rule, update_chaos_rule), so sibling differentiation is missing.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no indication of prerequisites or ordering relative to toggle_chaos_rule/list_chaos_rules, and no named alternative. An agent must infer entirely from the tool name that this is the creation entry point.

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