Create Project Rule

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

Annotations supply only readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries nearly the full disclosure burden. It does not say where the rule is persisted, whether it takes effect immediately or requires approval, whether duplicate rules are rejected, or whether rules are enforced automatically — all material for a write tool in a 'Standards' system.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. Slight redundancy between 'project rule' and 'across the project', but nothing wasteful.

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?

The tool is simple (two required params, no output schema, no nesting), so the description is close to sufficient. It still leaves out the outcome of the call and the relationship to the guardrail/check creation siblings, which matters for correct tool selection.

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%, with both parameters documented including enum values for category, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters (e.g., length limits on text or how to choose between 'process' and 'other').

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Create a new project rule') and the target system ('SystemDox Standards'), which is unambiguous. It does not distinguish this from similar siblings such as create_guardrail, create_check, or create_prompt_template, which also create project-scoped artifacts.

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?

'Use this when you discover a team principle or convention that should be enforced across the project' gives a usable trigger condition. However it offers no when-not guidance and does not say how this differs from create_guardrail, the closest-sounding sibling, so an agent could plausibly pick the wrong one.

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