update_policy

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: optimistic concurrency control via expectedVersion, 409 conflict responses, and the recommendation to retry on conflict. It also clarifies that only changed fields should be provided, not the entire object.

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 three concise sentences that front-load the purpose, then provide critical usage and conflict workflow. No superfluous words, every sentence 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 required params, no output schema), the description covers the key workflow: read-first, update only changed fields, handle conflicts. It could briefly mention what the tool returns on success, but overall it provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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?

While schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters, the description adds valuable context: expectedVersion is for version control, fields should contain only changed fields (not full object), and camelCase naming. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 action 'Update a policy draft' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like read_policy, create_policy, delete_policy, etc., which serve different purposes.

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 instructs to read the policy first to get expectedVersion, handle conflicts by reading again and retrying, and pass only changed fields in camelCase. This provides clear guidance on when and how to use the tool.

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