clash.rules.add

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

Discloses capability-gating, rejection of duplicates/drift, two-phase preview/nonce, and stable fingerprint anchors. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden; it is largely transparent but misses explicit destructive hint.

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?

Three concise sentences front-load the core action and context; no wasted words, efficient for agent consumption.

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?

Explains key behaviors (fingerprint anchors, rejections, two-phase) but lacks specifics on return values, error handling, and relationship to clash.rules.remove. Could be more complete for a complex tool with no output schema.

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 has 100% description coverage, but the overall description enriches understanding with fingerprint anchor concept and two-phase execution, adding value beyond individual parameter descriptions.

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 it adds rules to a section with prepend/append/delete via stable fingerprints, distinguishing it from sibling tools like clash.rules.remove and clash.rules.inspect.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings like clash.rules.remove, despite the 'delete' section causing overlap. Context is implied but not stated.

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