create_correlation_rule

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

Given no annotations, the description covers key behavioral aspects: the rule's delay before firing, allowed functions and normalized fields for definition, and structure of after_events. It does not detail all behaviors (e.g., permissions), but the provided info adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 well-structured: a clear purpose sentence, followed by line-by-line explanations of key parameters, and a separate note. Despite length, each sentence adds value and the content is front-loaded.

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 15 parameters and no annotations, the description explains core aspects but omits meanings for many parameters (integrity, adversary, etc.). The output schema exists but is not detailed in the description. Overall, adequate but with gaps.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It provides detailed context for definition, data_type, after_events, and server, but leaves 11 parameters unexplained (e.g., integrity, adversary). This partially compensates but is not comprehensive.

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 tool's purpose: 'Create a new correlation (detection) rule.' This distinctively separates it from sibling tools like list_correlation_rules, get_correlation_rule, etc., which are all focused on different operations.

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?

While the name and description make it obvious when to use the tool (to create a rule), there is no explicit guidance on when to avoid it or alternatives. The note about the 5-minute delay is behavioral, not usage guidance.

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