pls_create_area_rule

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

The annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds the requirement for double confirmation via the confirm parameter and outlines the return format. It does not contradict annotations. However, it omits details like whether the operation is idempotent (already indicated false) or what side effects occur.

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 relatively short but includes unnecessary line breaks and formatting. It conveys core information but could be more structured (e.g., bullet points for parameters). It is not overly verbose, but clarity could be improved.

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?

For a create tool with seven parameters, the description lacks completeness. It does not specify which parameters are mandatory for creation (besides confirm), nor does it explain the 'entity type' concept. The return format is simple, but without output schema, more detail on success/error handling would be helpful. The description feels insufficient for an agent to reliably invoke the tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds minimal value beyond what the schema already provides. It only highlights the confirm parameter and vaguely mentions that fields depend on entity type. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 explicitly states '创建区域规则实体' (create area rule entity), providing a clear verb and resource. The tool name itself is descriptive, and the wrench icon suggests a management action. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like pls_update_area_rule or pls_delete_area_rule, though the name makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions for creation, prerequisites, or scenarios where update or delete would be more appropriate. The hint about only passing required fields is minimal and does not address usage context.

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