Deep Rules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the tool is called once, that the agent then runs an editing loop itself, that rules are deduped by note id, and that it returns both a ready-to-paste 'checklist' string and structured 'rules'. It does not mention side effects, permissions, or idempotency, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then uses a clean numbered list for the workflow loop. Each sentence adds useful information, and there is no filler or redundant restatement.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained in depth, and the description covers the workflow well. However, input semantics are largely missing: task_type values and per_dim meaning are not documented despite 0% schema coverage. Sibling routing is also not addressed, leaving meaningful gaps for correct invocation.

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 0% for two parameters, so the description must compensate. It only indirectly implies that 'task_type' selects a task-type rule_pack; 'per_dim' (default 8) is never explained. This leaves both parameters substantially under-specified.

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 verb and resource: 'Build the full multi-dimensional checklist for deep Persian editing.' It also notes the tool combines a task-type rule_pack with five editorial dimensions, which helps distinguish it from the sibling rule_pack. However, it does not explicitly name when to choose it over rule_pack or smart_rules, so it falls short of a full 5.

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?

Usage is clearly described: 'any agent calls this once, then runs the deep-edit loop itself' followed by a four-step editing loop with a max pass count. This gives strong context for how to use the tool. It still lacks explicit exclusions or a direct comparison to alternatives like rule_pack and smart_rules.

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