manage-rules

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds value by detailing each action's behavior (creates, modifies, deletes, reorders) and noting the default action (list). This provides a behavioral overview beyond the binary annotation, though it does not disclose potential side effects like reordering affecting other rules.

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 single dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then enumerates actions concisely. While no sentence is wasteful, the structure could be improved with bullet points or clearer separation of actions. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool's complexity (37 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the five actions and their parameter relevance. However, it fails to explain return values (e.g., what 'lists rules' returns) or handling of edge cases (e.g., errors, pagination). More context on output would improve completeness.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description provides a high-level narrative linking actions to parameter groups but does not add new parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already states. It helps contextualize parameters within actions but doesn't compensate for any gaps.

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 identifies the tool as managing inbox rules with specific actions (list, create, update, reorder, delete), each with a brief purpose. It distinguishes the resource ('inbox rules') and the verb ('Manage,' then detailed action verbs), making it clear what the tool does.

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 enumerates actions and their default behavior (e.g., action=list is default) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There are no mentions of prerequisites, side effects, or sibling tools, so the agent must infer usage context from the action list alone.

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