Create Lead or Case Assignment Rule

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: 'Only one rule can be active at a time per object' and 'Rule entries are evaluated top-to-bottom and the first match wins.' These disclose important implications of the operation. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 primary purpose, followed by essential behavioral context. No filler or redundant information. Every sentence earns its 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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested ruleEntries object) and no output schema, the description covers the core concept and key constraints (one active rule, top-to-bottom evaluation) well. It doesn't explain return values, but the schema and annotations cover the rest sufficiently.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema, though it implies meaning for the 'active' parameter via the one-active-rule constraint. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Creates an Assignment Rule for Leads or Cases') with a specific resource and scope. It explains the purpose of assignment rules ('automatically route new records to the appropriate owner') which distinguishes it from sibling rule-creation tools like escalation rules or sharing rules.

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 provides context on when to use the tool: when creating assignment rules for Leads or Cases to auto-route records. It explains the key behavior but does not explicitly name alternative tools or mention when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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