add_rule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scope priority but omits important behavioral traits such as what happens on rule conflicts, the effect of the 'override' parameter, or any authentication/authorization requirements. The agent is left to infer that override exists from the schema, but the description does not explain it.

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 three sentences long, each sentence adds distinct information: what the tool does, what rules are for, and how scopes work with priority. No wasted words.

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 (5 parameters, including override behavior, rule types, and scope priority), the description does not cover the behavioral interaction between rules (e.g., conflict resolution, effect of override). There is no output schema, so the agent does not know what the response contains. The description is incomplete for confident use in a rule engine context.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented. The description adds value by explaining the scope priority order and linking scope to use cases, but does not meaningfully augment the semantics of trigger, action, rule_type, or override. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description provides some but limited additional context.

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 adds a behavioral rule to the rule engine, distinguishing it from siblings like update_rule (modify) and delete_rule (remove). It also explains the scope priority, which helps differentiate from other tools.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool (to add a rule) and explains the use cases for each scope (company, negotiated, personal) with priority. It indirectly implies that updating or deleting rules should be done with siblings, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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