nexo_guardian_rule_override

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the side effect (writes to a specific file), the non-persistent nature (runtime override), and that it takes effect without a restart. This provides solid transparency about the tool's behavior beyond just the action.

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 only three sentences, front-loading the core action and purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second explains the mechanism, and the third gives a concrete use case. No wasted words.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, mechanism, and use case adequately. It explains the file side effect and the temporary nature. It does not detail return values, but for a mutation tool with clear schema descriptions, this is sufficient. One could argue it misses error conditions, but overall it is complete enough.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context (e.g., 'drop to shadow' for the mode parameter) but doesn't significantly supplement the schema definitions. The schema already provides clear descriptions for rule_id, mode, and ttl, so the description's added value is marginal.

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 starts with a specific verb phrase 'Temporarily override a Guardian rule's mode', clearly identifying the action and resource. It also adds version context ('Plan Consolidado 0.17') and distinguishes from sibling guard tools (which check/log, not override). This makes the purpose immediately clear.

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 explains when the tool is useful: 'when a rule is noisy during an incident and needs to drop to shadow for an hour without a server restart'. It implies a temporary override scenario and provides context for mode selection. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or alternatives, but the use case is well-defined.

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