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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses critical behavioral context: the change routes to operator approval, it does not take effect silently, new grains default to the safe human_pre_gate mode, and approval semantics differ for first-use vs. ongoing use. This is exactly the kind of side-effect transparency an agent needs.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then explains modes, defaults, and approval behavior. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary due to the sensitive-tier approval prose, but every sentence contributes actionable guidance and the structure is logical.

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?

For a mutating, approval-gated tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, mode semantics, defaults, approval routing, and when to invoke it. The remaining parameter details are fully covered by the input schema, so nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 extra meaning to the key enum parameter gate_mode, spelling out the real-world difference between 'autonomous' and 'human_pre_gate' and noting the fail-safe default. It also reinforces the grain and companyId scope, though it does not add much for note, curate_only, or source_corpus_ref.

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 states a specific action ('Create or update'), a precise resource ('wisdom-layer publish policy for ONE content grain'), and a scope ('in the current company'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the read-only sibling get_grain_policy and from other publishing tools.

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 to call it ('on the first clear ask'), what the gate_mode options mean, and the default for new grains. It does not explicitly name get_grain_policy as the alternative for reading current policy, but the create/update framing and the 'one content grain' scope make the intended use clear.

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