proxy_add_rule

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions evaluation order (priority ascending, first match wins) which is useful. However, it does not discuss side effects, limits, or idempotency, which would be expected for a creation tool.

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 brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main action. However, it could be structured more clearly, perhaps listing the required components separately. Still, it is not verbose.

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 complex nested parameters and no output schema. The description is minimal and does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., rule ID) or how it handles duplicate descriptions or priority conflicts. More context is needed for an agent to use 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it just mentions 'matcher and handler' which are already defined in detail in the schema.

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 action (add), the resource (interception rule), and its components (matcher and handler). It also mentions evaluation order (priority ascending, first match wins), distinguishing it from sibling tools like proxy_update_rule or proxy_remove_rule.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not say to use proxy_update_rule for modifying existing rules or proxy_test_rule_match for testing. The description only states what the tool does, not when it is appropriate.

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