manage_dlp_policies

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, covering key behavioral traits. The description adds context by specifying the supported platforms (Exchange, SharePoint, etc.), which is useful beyond annotations. However, it doesn't elaborate on destructive aspects (e.g., what gets deleted), authentication needs, or rate limits, leaving room for improvement.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, destructive hint) and lack of output schema, the description is minimal. It covers the resource and scope but doesn't explain return values, error handling, or detailed behavioral implications. With annotations providing safety info, it's adequate but leaves gaps for a multi-action 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 description coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions for all parameters, including enums and nested objects. The description mentions 'Data Loss Prevention policies' and the platforms, which loosely relates to 'locations' and 'rules' but doesn't add significant meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Manage') and resource ('Data Loss Prevention policies') with scope ('across Exchange, SharePoint, OneDrive, and Teams'), making the purpose explicit. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'manage_dlp_incidents' or 'manage_information_protection_policies', which likely handle related but different aspects of DLP.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, dependencies, or differentiate from sibling tools such as 'manage_dlp_incidents' for incident handling or 'manage_information_protection_policies' for broader policy management. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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