Set Custom Organization Rules

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

Annotations disclose that it is not read-only, but provide no other safety details. The description adds the key behavioral trait that rules 'persist for the current session', which is valuable context. However, it does not state whether this overwrites existing rules or adds to them, nor whether it can be undone (though an undo sibling exists).

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 a two-sentence, front-loaded statement that delivers the core purpose and the session-scoping constraint with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise.

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 tool that sets rules affecting future file organization, the description is under-specified. It lacks information on how rules interact with existing categorization, the undo mechanism, and any effect on subsequent operations. Coupled with completely undocumented parameters, the overall context is insufficient.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage for the 'rules' parameter and its nested fields (category, priority, extensions, filename_pattern). The description provides no explanation of these fields, leaving the agent to guess their meaning and purpose. This is a critical gap for a complex structured parameter.

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 action ('Customize how files are categorized') and a resource ('custom organization rules'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'organize_files' (which performs actual organization) and 'categorize_by_type' (which uses predefined categories). The verb is specific and the scope is well-defined.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include 'set_custom_rules' vs. 'organize_files' vs. 'categorize_by_type', but the description doesn't clarify the relationship or when to prefer this over others. It also omits any prerequisites or context for applying rules.

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