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

No annotations provided, but the description fully discloses behavioral traits: policies are declarative data, validated but never executed, they replace previous set, apply transparently to later analyze_sql calls, and have a max of 50 policies. No contradiction.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, no redundant words. Every sentence adds unique value: action, update/clear mechanism, policy semantics, side effects, and reference to sibling tool.

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 only one parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description completely covers usage, behavior, and relation to sibling tools. No 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% and the schema already describes the parameter structure well. The description adds value by explaining how to update (send full set) and clear (empty array), which goes beyond the schema's description. This additional usage context justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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 ('Replace the stored custom org policy set') and the resource ('for your Pro key'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning get_policies for reading and analyze_sql for applying policies.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use context: setting, updating, clearing policies. Gives example of behavior (blocks/warns on operations) and tells user to use get_policies for reading. No ambiguity.

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