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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It reveals the mutable nature, operator approval requirement, default fail-safe mode for new grains, and sensitive-tier approval types. This adds significant transparency beyond the schema.

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 paragraphs with a clear structure: first sentence states the main action, followed by gate_mode details, defaults, and rationale. The bracketed note adds critical approval context without redundancy. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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's complexity (6 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, gate modes, defaults, and approval behavior. However, it lacks information about the response or return value, which is a minor gap.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context for 'gate_mode' (explaining enum values and defaults) and the overall approval implication, but does not elaborate on 'curate_only' or 'source_corpus_ref', which are sufficiently described 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 ('Create or update the wisdom-layer publish policy for ONE content grain in the current company.'), specifies the resource type ('content grain'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'get_grain_policy' by emphasizing the mutative and scope of 'ONE grain' and 'current company'.

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 use (to set publish policy), the two gate modes with defaults, and the approval routing ('routes to operator approval'). It does not explicitly contrast with read-only alternatives but provides enough context for appropriate use.

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