AtlaSent — Update Policy

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds important detail about partial updates and lifecycle transitions (publish/archive), which is beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences totaling 20 words, front-loaded with verb and resource. No redundant information. Efficient and to the point.

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?

Given the tool has 12 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and partial update behavior. However, it lacks details on required parameters (policy_id, org_id) and expected return format, though schema provides parameter details. Adequate for a simple update tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description mentions parameters generically (rules, title, publish/archive) but doesn't add meaning beyond schema descriptions. No extra semantics for individual 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 updates a constraint bundle, with specific actions like changing rules, title, or publishing/archiving. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create, delete, and get by focusing on modification.

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 explicitly notes partial update semantics ('Only fields you provide are updated; omitted fields are unchanged.'), which is crucial for correct usage. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use, the context of sibling tools implies it's for modifying existing policies.

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