Save house rules

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known; the description nonetheless adds substantive context: the operation replaces the whole rulebook and locked checks cannot be overridden. It does not say what happens to unspecified keys or what error surfaces when a locked check is violated, which keeps it below 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?

The purpose and the confirmation precondition are front-loaded in two short sentences, and nothing is padded. The trailing "Schema: ..." key dump reads as a raw list rather than prose, which is slightly inelegant but still informative.

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 one-parameter, destructive, no-output-schema tool, the definition covers intent, human-confirmation requirement, the locked-check constraint, and the shape of the payload. The remaining gap is failure/partial-update behavior, which an agent would want before overwriting a rulebook.

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 single parameter has 100% schema coverage and the schema points to get_house_rules, so the baseline is a 3. The description earns an extra point by enumerating the actual rulebook keys (locale, brand, links, compliance, etc.), which the open-ended additionalProperties schema does not reveal at all, though it does not explain what each key means.

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?

"Replace the team's rulebook" gives a specific verb (replace, not update) and resource (rulebook), which also tells the agent this is a full overwrite rather than an incremental edit like add_exception. The full-replacement scope is enough to distinguish it from the sibling get_house_rules read path.

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?

"Always show the person the changes and get a yes first" is a real precondition that gates invocation and is stated explicitly. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., add_exception for a single rule) or saying when not to call it, so it is clear context but not a complete routing rule.

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