Save Auto-Booking Rule

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world write. The description adds a meaningful behavioral gate — the rule must be confirmed/approved first — which is not in the annotations. It still doesn't say what happens on conflict or whether it overwrites an existing rule, but it exceeds the annotation baseline.

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 sentences, zero filler: the first names the action and scope, the second states the precondition. Front-loaded and appropriately sized.

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 9-parameter mutation with an approval gate and no output schema, the description covers the essential precondition but omits what the saved rule affects, whether an existing rule is replaced, and how match behaves on collision. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 schema already documents all nine parameters including match, reason, category enum, and account IDs. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is the baseline-3 case when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (save/update) and resource (counterparty auto-booking default) with the scope 'one stable counterparty'. Clear enough that an agent can distinguish it from sibling booking tools like suggest_booking or classify_bank_transactions, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('Use only after the treatment has been confirmed and approved'), which is clear when-to-use guidance. There is no when-not-to-use statement or named alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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