set_rule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a mutation tool (implied by 'Set'), requires admin privileges, has session-level persistence, can be exported via export_rules(), and returns confirmation or error messages. It doesn't mention rate limits or destructive consequences beyond the rule change.

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 appropriately sized and well-structured with clear sections (purpose, context, parameters, returns). Every sentence adds value, though the parameter documentation is quite detailed which is necessary given the schema coverage gap.

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 (3 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations) and 0% schema coverage, the description provides excellent completeness. It covers purpose, usage context, detailed parameter semantics, and behavioral traits. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing comprehensive parameter documentation. It clearly explains all three parameters (section, key, value) with detailed options, examples, and formatting guidance that goes far beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 specific action ('Set a specific rule value'), target resource ('active dashboard rules'), and user role ('admins'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on runtime rule modification rather than other dashboard operations like export_rules or reset_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 clear context for when to use this tool ('modify rules at runtime without editing YAML files') and mentions persistence behavior ('Changes persist for the current session'). It explicitly references the complementary export_rules() function but doesn't specify when NOT to use this tool or compare it to all alternatives like reset_rules.

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