ds_execute_rule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (dict of output parameters, plus stdout/stderr when 'ruleExecOut' is requested) and a pre-execution access check on path-typed parameters. It omits the most consequential trait: that executing a rule (especially arbitrary inline iRL) can mutate or delete data, and no side-effect or failure behavior is described.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then modes, then return behavior, then the safety check. No filler and nothing restated from the title or schema verbatim.

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 5-parameter tool with a nested free-form object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers invocation modes, return format, and one permission gate. It is short of complete because side effects/destructiveness and error behavior for rule execution are not addressed.

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 baseline is 3, and the description adds real meaning: the rule_name/rule_text duality, the semantics of output_parameters via 'ruleExecOut', and the check applied to path-typed inputs. Only instance_name and input_parameters binding behavior remain unelaborated.

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?

"Run an iRODS rule" gives a specific verb and resource, and the two invocation modes (server-installed rule_name vs inline rule_text) sharpen it. It does not name siblings like ds_list_rules or ds_get_rule_definition to differentiate scope, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

"Supply either rule_name (server-installed) or rule_text (inline iRL)" gives in-tool parameter routing, and the schema reinforces the exactly-one constraint. However, there is no guidance on when to use this tool versus a wrapper or a more specific sibling, and no prerequisites are stated.

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