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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation operation, implying mutation, but doesn't cover permissions needed, whether the operation is idempotent, error conditions, or what happens on success. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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, no output schema, and low schema description coverage (33%), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain behavioral aspects, parameter meanings beyond the obvious, or usage context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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 only 33%, with only the 'name' parameter documented in the schema. The description adds no information about parameters beyond what's implied by the tool name, failing to compensate for the low coverage. It doesn't explain the meaning of 'status' or 'isFavourite' parameters.

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 ('Create a new group') and the resource ('in Requestly'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'update_group' in terms of when to create versus update, which prevents a perfect score.

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 like 'update_group' or 'get_groups', nor does it mention prerequisites or constraints. It simply states what the tool does without context for selection.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions that 'each rule has a specific structure and parameters based on the ruleType,' hinting at complexity, but doesn't disclose critical behaviors like authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects, or what happens on success/failure. For a creation tool with no annotations, this is inadequate.

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 two sentences but could be more front-loaded; the first sentence is dense with rule types, making it slightly cluttered. It avoids redundancy but doesn't efficiently prioritize key information, such as emphasizing the ruleType's critical role upfront.

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 creation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or operational constraints. Given the complexity implied by varied rule types, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 all parameters thoroughly. The description adds little beyond stating that parameters vary by ruleType, which is implied in the schema. It doesn't provide additional context like examples or best practices, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool creates various types of rules in Requestly, listing specific rule types like Redirect, Cancel, Replace, etc. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like delete_rule or update_rule by focusing on creation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from create_group which creates a different resource.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like needing a group ID for group assignment, nor does it compare with sibling tools like create_group for creating groups first. The description lacks context about when this tool is appropriate versus other operations.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to associated data (e.g., rules in the group). It lacks critical behavioral context for a destructive operation.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like irreversibility, error conditions, or response format, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's full context and implications.

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%, with the single parameter 'id' fully documented in the schema as 'Unique identifier of the group to delete.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or sourcing guidance, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Delete') and the resource ('a specific group in Requestly'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'delete_rule' beyond mentioning 'group' specifically, so it doesn't fully differentiate from all alternatives.

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 like 'update_group' or 'get_groups', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the group id from 'get_groups'). It only states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Delete') which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't describe consequences (e.g., irreversible deletion, no confirmation prompt), permissions required, error conditions, or rate limits. This is inadequate for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place by specifying the tool's purpose without 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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context such as what happens after deletion (success response, error handling), whether the action is reversible, and how it relates to sibling tools. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral and output information.

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 fully documents the single 'ruleId' parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format examples, where to find ruleIds, or validation rules). The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Delete') and the resource ('a specific rule in Requestly'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_group', but the specificity of 'rule' vs 'group' provides implicit distinction. The description avoids tautology by not just restating the name/title.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid ruleId), when not to use it (e.g., for bulk deletions), or refer to sibling tools like 'delete_group' for different resource types. Usage is implied only through the tool name and parameter.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it 'gets all groups' but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by offset/pageSize but not explained), or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with parameters.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose without 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?

Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, parameter meanings, or output details, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 0%, and the description adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'offset' and 'pageSize' mean or how they affect the 'get all groups' operation, failing to compensate for the schema 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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all groups in Requestly'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_rules' beyond the resource name, missing explicit comparison.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'get_rules' for different resources.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Supports pagination and lookup by ruleId,' which adds some behavioral context, but it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 front-loads the main purpose and includes key features without waste. Every part earns its place by conveying essential information concisely.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with parameters and retrieval functionality. It covers the basic purpose and hints at behavior but lacks details on permissions, response structure, or error cases, which are important for an AI agent to use it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the three parameters (ruleId, offset, pageSize). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning pagination and ruleId lookup, but it doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or usage nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'retrieve' and resource 'rules' or 'a specific rule' from 'Requestly using its API', making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like create_rule or delete_rule by focusing on retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_groups, which might be similar in structure but for a different resource.

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 by mentioning support for pagination and lookup by ruleId, suggesting when to use parameters, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_groups or search functions. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose critical traits: whether it requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given this is a mutation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like side effects, error handling, or return values, nor does it clarify parameter semantics for half the inputs. For a tool that modifies data, more context is needed to use it effectively and safely.

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 50% (only 'id' and 'name' have descriptions), so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. It doesn't explain the meaning of 'status' or 'isFavourite', their impact on the group, or provide examples. The baseline is 3 because the schema covers half the parameters, but the description doesn't enhance understanding of the undocumented ones.

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 ('Update') and resource ('a specific group in Requestly'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_group' and 'delete_group' by specifying modification rather than creation or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'update_rule' in terms of what resource type is being updated.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing group ID), when to choose this over 'create_group' or 'delete_group', or any constraints like permission requirements. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation but doesn't mention whether it's idempotent, what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with 7 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with comprehensive schema documentation and follows a clear subject-verb-object structure.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes a valid 'updated rule payload,' how partial updates work, what happens to existing rule data, or what the tool returns. The schema handles parameter documentation well, but the description fails to provide necessary behavioral context.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are well-documented in the structured schema. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'ruleId and the updated rule payload' but doesn't provide additional context beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Update') and resource ('an existing rule in Requestly'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'update_group' or explain how rule updates differ from rule creation, which prevents a perfect score.

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 mentions that it 'requires ruleId and the updated rule payload,' which provides minimal usage context but doesn't explain when to use this versus alternatives like 'create_rule' or 'update_group.' No guidance is given about prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases for rule updates.

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