name_policy_major_version

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the tool only renames and has no side effects. This is good but could be enhanced by mentioning if the operation is reversible or requires specific permissions.

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 two sentences totaling ~50 words. It front-loads the purpose and packs precise constraints (what it targets, what it doesn't do) without redundancy. Every sentence is necessary and informative.

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 3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the action, target identification, and limitations. It could mention the return format (e.g., success message or updated version), but the current level is adequate for a simple rename operation.

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% with parameter descriptions. The description adds value by specifying that majorVersion uses an integer from list_policy_versions and is not a checkpoint or versionId, providing essential context beyond the schema.

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 uses a clear verb-resource structure: 'Give a policy's major version a name'. It explicitly distinguishes from create/publish/rollback actions, and the sibling tools (name_workflow_major_version, name_agent_major_version, etc.) show this is a specific naming operation, making differentiation straightforward.

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 states when to use: targeting a major version by integer number from list_policy_versions. It clarifies what it does not do (create, publish, roll back), providing clear scope. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tool references, but the context is sufficient for the intended use case.

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