nexo_guardian_rule_override

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool writes to a specific JSON file and that the override is temporary (no server restart needed). It does not cover all potential side effects (e.g., interactions with multiple overrides) but provides essential behavioral context.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the core purpose and then adding a concrete use case. Every word is purposeful; no extraneous information. This is an ideal length for quick comprehension.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description could mention what the tool returns. However, for a simple override tool, the provided information is largely sufficient. The description omits the ability to clear an override (which is documented in the schema), but the schema covers that gap, so overall completeness is good.

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 detailed parameter descriptions. The tool's description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema; it only reiterates the use case. Therefore, the description provides minimal added value for parameter understanding beyond what the schema already offers.

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: temporarily override a Guardian rule's mode. It specifies the verb ('override'), resource ('Guardian rule'), and scope ('temporarily'). Among the sibling tools, no other tool does this, so it is well-distinguished.

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 a concrete use case ('when a rule is noisy during an incident and needs to drop to shadow for an hour without a server restart'), which helps the agent understand when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternative approaches.

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