memory_add_template_rule

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It explains rule_type values but does not mention whether the rule is appended or inserted, effects on existing rules, or required permissions. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.

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 two short sentences, front-loading the essential purpose and the key constraint on rule_type. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 an output schema exists, return values need not be described. However, for a 5-parameter tool with 4 required fields, the description covers only two parameters adequately. Information on priority defaults (default 2) and formatting of content is missing, limiting 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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to 'template' (by name) and 'rule_type' (mandatory/forbidden), but provides no explanation for 'title', 'content', or 'priority'. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate given partial value.

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 action ('Add a rule to a template') and specifies the identifying field ('by template name'). It also clarifies the two permitted values for rule_type ('mandatory' or 'forbidden'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like memory_add_rule which add rules directly.

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 implies usage when adding a rule to a template, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like memory_add_rule_bulk or memory_update_rule. There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it.

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