memoryguard_rule_create_auto

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explicitly reveals the fail-closed behavior, the trust boundary definition, and the admin-capability prerequisite — the key safety-critical traits of a rule-creation mutation. It does not mention idempotency semantics despite the presence of idempotency_key, nor what happens on success, but the most important behavioral traits are well covered.

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?

Two dense sentences with zero filler. The core action is stated first, and the safety-critical scoping constraint is front-loaded immediately after. Every clause carries information an agent needs before invoking the tool.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description fully covers the make-or-break decision for an agent: what scope is allowed by default and what is required to widen it. The main gaps are the lack of return-value expectations and idempotency_key behavior, which are secondary for a rule-creation action but still relevant.

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 71%, placing the baseline near 3. The description adds genuine meaning to the scope and manual parameters: it explains that auto mode rejects broad targets and limits to the trusted agent/project cwd, and that manual=true requires admin capability. It adds less value for idempotency_key and workspace, which remain schema-only.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create one mandatory rule from text.' It also clarifies the distinguishing trait of the 'auto' suffix by explaining that automatic scope inference is fail-closed, which separates this from any manual rule-creation path. This is unambiguous and differentiated.

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 gives clear context on when the auto path is usable: only the trusted current agent or that agent plus the trusted project cwd. It also states the exact conditions for broader scope (manual=true, explicit scope object, admin capability). It stops short of naming sibling alternatives or stating explicit 'use X instead' exclusions, so it gets a 4 rather than a 5.

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