Apply Policy Changes

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior (destructiveHint: true). The description adds that it performs automatic format correction, but does not detail what that entails, what gets destroyed, or any authentication requirements. It adds some context but not extensive.

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 a single sentence, concise but under-specified. It conveys the core action but could include more detail without being verbose. The structure is fine but does not earn extra points for completeness.

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 presence of an output schema, the description still lacks important context like error handling, idempotency, scope of operation, and what 'automatic format correction' implies. It is not complete for a mutation tool with potential destructive effects.

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%, and the description does not explain the parameters (operations, preview, request_id). The agent must rely on parameter names alone, which are somewhat self-explanatory but lack specifics about the structure of operations objects or the effect of preview.

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 it creates or updates Automox policies, with automatic format correction. It distinguishes from read tools and other policy manipulation tools like clone_policy, delete_policy. However, it doesn't specify if it applies to all policies or a subset.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when to use preview mode, or when to prefer other policy tools like create_policy or update_policy.

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