waf_rate_rule_set

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the operation is reversible ('Reversible (remove=true)') and warns of danger. However, it does not elaborate on what makes it dangerous (e.g., potential to block legitimate traffic) or mention required permissions or side effects. For a tool marked as dangerous, more detail is expected.

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 and front-loads the primary purpose. Every clause adds value: first sentence defines the operation and its niche, second sentence details key parameters and a critical warning. No filler or redundancy.

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 the tool has 7 parameters, is dangerous, and lacks an output schema, the description does a good job covering purpose, parameter nuances, and the warning. However, it omits what the return value looks like and any prerequisites (e.g., IAM permissions). It is mostly complete, with minor 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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema. It clarifies 'site' accepts multiple formats, specifies that 'limit' is per client IP (schema only says per IP), explains action modes ('enforce' vs 'dry-run'), and highlights rule_name idempotency. This enriches parameter understanding significantly.

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 function: 'Create/attach (or remove) a WAF rate-based rule on a site's WebACL — the durable fix for a flood.' It uses specific verbs (create/attach/remove) and identifies the resource (WAF rate-based rule on WebACL). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'block_ip' or 'ip_ban_set', which deal with IP blocking rather than rate-based rules.

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 implies usage context as 'the durable fix for a flood' and explicitly warns 'DANGEROUS — confirm with the user first.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like 'ip_ban_set'. The guidance is present but could be more direct about exclusion criteria.

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