iranti

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: that rules persist across sessions, are stored as entities, and surface conditionally during iranti_attend. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, error conditions, or what happens if a rule with an existing ruleId is written, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 perfectly structured and concise with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, explains the mechanism, provides a concrete example, and concludes with persistence information—all in three efficient sentences that each earn their place.

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 creation/mutation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains the tool's purpose, when to use it, how rules function, and their persistence. However, it doesn't describe what happens on success/failure or return values, which would be helpful given the absence of output schema and annotations.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, only implying that 'rule' contains guideline text and 'triggers' match against attend context. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('write a task-scoped user operating rule') and resources ('rule/<rule_id> entities'), and distinguishes it from siblings by explaining its unique function of creating rules that surface during iranti_attend based on trigger keywords. It provides concrete examples like 'always use GitHub Releases, not npm publish' triggered by specific keywords.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('for recurring guidelines that should be applied to specific task types') and provides a clear alternative context by mentioning that rules 'surface during iranti_attend only when the current context matches one or more trigger keywords.' This creates a direct relationship with the sibling tool iranti_attend, giving clear usage context.

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