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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the filename coercion to *.policy.md and the on-disk location, but omits write semantics such as whether an existing policy is overwritten, auth/permission requirements, or any confirmation behavior expected for a mutation.

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 tightly packed sentences that lead with the core action and path, then the coercion rule, then usage timing. No filler, and each sentence adds a distinct fact, though the phrasing is somewhat dense.

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?

Covers the essentials for locating and invoking the tool, but for a write/upsert operation with no annotations and no output schema, it should say more about overwrite behavior and permissions. Adequate but with clear 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains policyFileName (coerced to *.policy.md, matching get-policy), but says nothing about the content parameter beyond its name, leaving one of two required parameters undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 (create or update = upsert) plus the exact resource and target path (plans/knowledge/policies/*.policy.md). An agent can immediately distinguish this from the read-oriented sibling get-policy and from upsert-plans-support-file, which targets a different file.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance: prefer this after writing the file locally so the policy is available immediately, noting git sync also works later as an alternative path. It stops short of naming a specific alternate tool or explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it is strong context rather than full routing.

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