attach_user_policy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It exceeds expectations by disclosing the write nature, reversibility, risk level, and the critical nuance that MinIO canned policies replace rather than add, potentially narrowing access. It also explains dry_run preview behavior.

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?

The description is well-structured with a tag, a purpose line, a behavioral warning, and an Args list. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value; the format improves scannability. Minor redundancy exists with the WRITE tag and 'risk=medium', but overall efficient.

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?

The tool is a straightforward write operation, and the description covers purpose, usage hints, parameter provenance, behavioral quirks, and dry-run capability. No output schema exists, but for an attach operation the absence of return-value details is acceptable. The description is self-contained and contextually rich.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: access_key (from iam_users), policies (from iam_policies), dry_run (preview), and target (default if omitted). This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema, which only lists names and types.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Attach canned policies to a user.' It clearly distinguishes the action from sibling tools like detach_user_policy and mentions reversibility, making the purpose unambiguous. The 'WRITE' tag reinforces the operation 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?

The description implies usage context by referencing 'from iam_users' and 'from iam_policies' for argument values, and it warns about a specific risky scenario (narrowing the tool's own access). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or provide exclusions, which limits usage guidance.

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