create_destroy_rule

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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: the created rule is inactive by default, so nothing takes effect until it is later activated, and retention_days has a hard minimum of one day. Annotations cover the write/open-world/idempotency profile, so this additional context is the valuable part. It doesn't say what happens if archive_rule_sys_id is invalid or what the response contains.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with the key fact (inactive) first. The retention_days sentence duplicates the schema's minimum constraint, which is minor redundancy but still useful as a quick-read guard.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, the description covers purpose and the inactive-by-default outcome but leaves the parameter contract and the activation follow-up largely implicit. Adequate to identify the tool, thin for calling it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for five parameters, so the description must carry the burden and doesn't. It only restates the retention_days minimum that the schema already enforces via minimum: 1, and leaves archive_rule_sys_id, name, description, and destroy_related entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Create an inactive destroy rule") and scopes it to archived data, which separates it from create_archive_rule and create_cleanup_rule by rule type. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation relies on the reader's knowledge of the rule taxonomy.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (it requires an existing archive_rule_sys_id but doesn't say so), and no reference to set_destroy_rule_active for actually enabling the rule. The phrase "inactive" hints that activation is a separate step but the description never says so.

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