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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses the auth requirement (org:admin), the agent-seat refusal (human_required), the console requirement (console_required), the audit event (org.automation.set), and the ~30-second propagation delay. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a mutating policy tool.

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?

Front-loads purpose and auth, then layers constraints, timing, and the sibling pointer. Every sentence earns its place, though the dense run-on middle sentence slightly reduces scannability.

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 need not be explained. The description covers permissions, failure modes, audit trail, propagation timing, verification path (glian_status), and the sibling alternative, leaving no material gap for correct invocation.

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 100% and both enums are fully documented in the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional per-parameter meaning beyond noting glian_status reports 'every policy under review_policies', which maps loosely to the policy enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Set one of the org's review policies') and explicitly disambiguates from the closest sibling by noting that held memory writes have their own tool, memory_write_policy_set. An agent can distinguish it from memory_write_policy_set and org_automation_set without opening a schema.

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 strong selection context: it is people-only, requires org:admin, refuses agent seats with human_required, and needs a console browser session under decider=console. It also routes memory-write policies to a sibling. It lacks a crisp 'use this instead of X when Y' statement, but the conditions are clear enough.

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