Create Auto-Response Rule

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context about the rule's behavior (sending confirmation email) and how rule entries select templates based on criteria. This goes beyond the annotations but does not contradict them.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler or repetitive statements. Every sentence adds meaningful information.

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?

With a detailed schema and clear annotations, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, behavior, and usage context. No output schema is present, but the create action is well-defined and the agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, so the base line is 3. The description adds a high-level explanation that rule entries map criteria to templates, but this largely paraphrases schema descriptions rather than providing new details.

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 creates an Auto-Response Rule for Web-to-Lead or Web-to-Case, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes this from sibling tools by naming the exact use case (automatic confirmation email upon web form submission).

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 a clear scenario for when to use the tool: when a lead/case is created via a web form and an automatic email should be sent. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is specific enough to guide selection.

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