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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond annotations — that ask-policy connections receive a human approval link — but says nothing about reversibility, permissions required, or the full blast radius of the change.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the consequence. Efficient and well-ordered, though it trades away detail for brevity given the documentation gaps.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, and annotations cover the mutation profile. However, for a destructive policy-switch tool the description omits both usage context and the meaning of the enum it exists to set, leaving an agent under-equipped.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for the single required enum parameter and fails to do so: it never explains what 'publishable_key' versus 'trusted_only' actually grant. It gestures at the axis ('who may stage') but does not map either enum value to a meaning.

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?

States a specific verb ('Switch') and resource ('who may stage code-defined drafts'), which maps cleanly to the code-sync policy concept in the title. An agent can tell what the tool does, though it never names the read counterpart fillo_get_code_sync_policy to make the differentiation explicit.

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 a consequence ('ask-policy connections receive a human approval link') but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to the sibling get tool as the way to inspect the current policy first. An agent gets no routing help.

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