Create Check (legacy name)

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description usefully adds lifecycle context the annotations cannot: the tool is deprecated, still functional, and guaranteed to exist until 2027-01-31. It does not say what happens on creation (duplicate handling, validation, whether an ID is returned), which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the deprecation warning so an agent sees the redirect before anything else. Every sentence carries distinct information: deprecation, timeline, action, trigger.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers routing and lifecycle well but says nothing about the result of a successful create or any failure modes. Annotations are minimal (only readOnlyHint), so the missing behavioral detail is a real gap, though the fully documented schema offsets much of it.

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 one of the 7 parameters is already documented. The description only loosely echoes the field intent with 'banned pattern, required pattern, coding rule,' which maps to pattern/fix without adding format or constraint detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Create a new check in SystemDox.' It also resolves the naming ambiguity with the sibling create_check by declaring this name a deprecated alias. The only reason it is not a 5 is that 'check' vs the tool name 'guardrail' requires the reader to reconcile two vocabularies.

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?

It gives both the positive trigger ('when you discover a pattern that should be enforced') and the negative route ('DEPRECATED — use create_check instead'). An agent knows exactly when to call this and when to call the sibling instead, with no inference required.

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