create_rule

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation (false implies mutation), and 'Create' clearly indicates a write operation. However, it doesn't add behavioral details beyond that, such as whether rules apply retroactively, the persistence model, or potential side effects. With annotations covering the basic write nature, this is adequate but minimal.

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 captures the essential purpose without redundancy. No filler or unnecessary detail.

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?

The description gives a high-level overview but does not explain how the condition and action parameters interact, what the stage parameter does beyond the schema's brief note, or the expected behavior on success. For a rule creation tool with 6 parameters, an agent might need more context to assemble a correct call, though the schema does cover individual fields.

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 100%, so all parameters already have descriptions. The tool description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as relationships between condition_field and action_field or the semantics of the stage parameter. It meets the baseline for high schema coverage but provides no extra value.

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 transaction rule') and the resource, and explains the core behavior: matching a condition triggers an action automatically. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like get_rules or delete_rule, but the verb and resource make it obvious.

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 such as get_rules or delete_rule, nor any context about prerequisites or typical scenarios. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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