Propose a Team Rule

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

Adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond the annotations: the rule is inert until the person approves it on the Team rules page, so the agent must not treat it as active. It doesn't address re-proposal/deduplication or how conflicting rules are handled, which leaves some gaps against the idempotentHint.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger condition, then the behavior, then the required follow-up; three tight paragraphs with no filler. Every sentence tells the agent something actionable.

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 non-destructive mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers trigger, effect, and post-call reporting. Minor gaps remain around duplicate proposals and what happens if a similar rule already exists, but nothing essential is missing.

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 every parameter is already documented with length limits and intent, and the description adds only illustrative examples of rule phrasing rather than new parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Propose one team rule') and pins the exact triggering situation: a correction to a design/copy/UX choice that must hold for future builds, with concrete examples. The pending-approval behavior also implicitly separates it from set-team-rules, which applies rules immediately.

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 both the positive condition ('when the person corrects a design, copy or UX choice ... and the correction should hold for every future build') and an explicit exclusion ('Do not propose a fix that only this task needs'). It also prescribes the follow-up action after the call, so the agent knows the full workflow.

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