request_publish_policy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool does not publish directly, creates a pending approval, and returns the approval object with readiness. This provides key behavioral context for an AI agent, though additional details on prerequisites or side effects would improve transparency.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every word adds value. No unnecessary phrasing or repetition.

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?

For a simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the action's effect (creates approval, returns it) and the required human step. It could mention that the policy must be in a draft state, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides ('The policy's id.' and 'A short note...'). Thus, no added value, baseline score of 3 applies.

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 requests publication of a policy and explicitly distinguishes from actual publication by noting it creates a pending approval. Among many sibling request_publish_* tools, the resource 'policy' is specified, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 says 'This does NOT publish it' and mentions human approval in Axonity, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling tools are distinguished by resource type, so usage is implied.

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