Create rewrite rule

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, and idempotent=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the core behavioral trait: rewrites mutate live requests/responses (headers, body, status) and do not short-circuit the upstream call. It does not cover failure modes or return behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the distinguishing behavioral constraint immediately following. Every sentence earns its place.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no enums, the description establishes purpose and the non-short-circuit behavior but omits what a created rule returns, ordering/precedence concerns, or how the required trio (name, match_url, action) drives behavior. Adequate but leaves real gaps.

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 71%, so most parameters carry their own descriptions (value, action, target, match_url, match_method). The description adds no parameter-level detail such as match pattern syntax, action verb vocabulary, or how target and value interact, so it does not compensate for the undocumented remainder.

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?

Names a specific verb (Create) and resource (rewrite rule) and adds the distinguishing behavioral trait that rewrites mutate live traffic without short-circuiting upstream. This implicitly separates it from the mock/chaos rule creators, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 phrase 'without short-circuiting the upstream call' implies the rewrite scenario versus a mock that would stub the response, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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