eventbridge_put_rule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool can create or update (implying mutation), but it does not explain important behaviors such as whether updating an existing rule replaces the entire rule, how missing optional fields are handled, or if there are any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool without annotation support.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the essential action and scope. It is concise and without filler. However, it is so brief that it omits valuable context, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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 mutating tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain the rule lifecycle (e.g., that targets are added separately), what happens on update, or any constraints. The schema covers parameters, but the description fails to provide the operational context an agent needs to use this tool effectively alongside its siblings.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter with meaningful descriptions. The description text adds no parameter-specific information beyond 'create or update'. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the load; there is no additional value from the description.

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 verb and resource: 'Create or update an EventBridge rule'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like eventbridge_put_targets (which adds targets to a rule) and eventbridge_enable_rule/disable_rule. The 'in LocalStack' scoping adds context. No ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 implies usage: it's for creating or updating rules, and there is no other rule creation/update tool among siblings. However, it does not explicitly explain when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing an event bus or that targets must be added separately with put_targets. No exclusion criteria are given.

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