set_policy

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

The description discloses that the tool reads the policy first, records an undo, restores prior fields or deletes the policy if newly created, and supports dry_run. This is rich behavioral transparency, especially given no formal annotations exist to provide this context.

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 summary line, behavior notes, and a clear Args list. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and contains no unnecessary sentences; every part adds value.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, behavior, parameters, and edge cases such as new vs existing policies and dry_run. Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, it provides all essential context an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly.

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?

Every parameter is explained with semantics, defaults, examples, and the special meaning of the target parameter. The description fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage by providing essential details beyond the raw schema fields.

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 clearly states the tool creates or updates a RabbitMQ policy, using a specific verb and resource. It also explains the reversibility and the difference from deletion, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_policy.

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 clearly implies the tool is for creating/updating policies and mentions dry_run for previewing, which gives solid usage context. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when-not-to-use, though the clarity of the purpose largely compensates.

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