Add or update a request-modification rule (idempotent upsert)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the idempotent upsert semantics and that existing same-key properties are replaced, which is valuable. However, it does not disclose mutation effects, whether existing rules get destroyed, auth/permission requirements, or any side effects on other rules sharing the same method+url.

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 just two sentences and both earn their place: the first explains what the tool does, the second clarifies the idempotent replacement semantics. Efficient and front-loaded with the primary action.

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 8 parameters, 2 required, nested objects, and no annotations or output schema, the description is reasonably complete for purpose but could clarify relationships to sibling transform tools and explain the upsert key more. The core behavior is clear, though behavioral side-effects and return value expectations are undocumented.

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 all 8 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds the 'idempotent upsert' key concept that ties method+url+regex together but does not add per-parameter meaning beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the full schema coverage.

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 title and description state a specific verb+resource ('Add or update a request-modification rule'), and the description names the exact key ('method + url + regex') used for upsert semantics. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like proxy_mock_transform (mocking) and proxy_update_transform (transforms generally) by specifying it handles REQUEST transforms specifically.

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 explains the idempotent upsert behavior and the uniqueness key, which conveys when this replaces versus inserts. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool versus proxy_request_transform, proxy_update_transform, or proxy_save_transforms. The differentiation from siblings is implied rather than explicit.

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