redeploy_rules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is ADMIN-only, overwrites files with force=True, archives old copies when archive=True, and warns about destructiveness when archive=False. It could further mention that it may overwrite local edits, but overall provides good behavioral context.

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 well-structured with a clear header, a code block for file locations, and separate usage instructions. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy 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?

Given the complexity of the tool and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, usage context, and parameter interactions. It lacks information about error handling or success indications, but overall is sufficiently complete for an admin tool.

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%, and the schema already provides detailed descriptions for each parameter. The tool description adds minimal additional meaning beyond restating the parameter behaviors, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 tool redeploys bundled FCoP protocol rules to the project, specifying it is ADMIN-only and listing the exact file locations. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'deploy_role_templates' which deploy different resources.

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 explicitly advises to run after upgrading fcop and mentions that fcop_report indicates when it's needed. It also includes a policy statement that agents must not invoke this tool, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, though it lacks explicit alternatives.

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