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

Adds real behavior beyond annotations: filename coercion to *.policy.md and immediate availability versus later git sync. However, annotations declare destructiveHint=true and the description never says what an update overwrites (existing policy body, concurrent edits) or what auth is required beyond what the schema states, leaving the destructive profile unexplained.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and location, then the coercion rule, then the timing guidance. No filler; only the parenthetical '(same as get-policies)' is slightly compressed.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description says nothing about the return value (e.g., resulting path or confirmation) or overwrite/conflict behavior for a destructive mutation. Location, coercion, and timing are covered, but an agent still lacks enough to predict the effect of replacing an existing policy.

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?

At 50% schema coverage, the description compensates for policyFileName by explaining the coercion to *.policy.md, which is genuinely useful. The required `content` parameter is left entirely unexplained in both description and schema, so the gap is only half filled.

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+resource (create or update a workflow policy file) and pins it to a concrete path pattern (plans/knowledge/policies/*.policy.md). It relates itself to get-policies, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from the close sibling upsert-plans-support-file, which handles a different file type.

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 useful sequencing guidance: prefer calling after writing the file locally, with git sync as a deferred alternative. It does not state when NOT to use it or name competing tools (e.g., upsert-plans-support-file for plan files), so usage is implied rather than fully specified.

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