create_business_rule

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

Annotations indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world mutation. The description adds a scripting requirement and ES2021 support, which is useful but minimal. It does not contradict 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?

Two sentences, no unnecessary words. The first sentence states purpose and a critical requirement; the second adds relevant capability info. It is efficiently crafted.

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 7 parameters well-described in schema and annotations present, the description covers the core action and a key prerequisite. However, it lacks details about return values or side effects, which are not provided by output schema or annotations.

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% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds no extra parameter details beyond the schema, but the ES2021 note reinforces the script parameter's context. Baseline score is appropriate.

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 'Create a new business rule', which is a specific verb and resource. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_business_rule', the action is unambiguous and domain-specific.

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 notes a prerequisite (SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_business_rule, create_script_include). It lacks explicit use case context or exclusions.

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