manage_teams_policies

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, covering the core safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this - it mentions the scope ('across the organization') but doesn't discuss permissions needed, rate limits, side effects, or what happens during policy assignment. The description doesn't contradict annotations.

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 communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the main action and resource. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating scope from functionality.

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 complex tool with 7 parameters, nested objects, destructive operations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the resource domain but lacks crucial context about how different actions work, what the tool returns, or error conditions. The annotations help but don't fully compensate for the description's brevity given the tool's complexity.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema comprehensively documents all 7 parameters and their nested structures. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the high-level policy domains mentioned. It doesn't explain parameter relationships, dependencies, or provide usage examples, so it meets but doesn't exceed the baseline expectation.

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 ('Microsoft Teams policies') with specific policy domains listed (messaging, meetings, calling, apps, live events). It distinguishes from many sibling tools that handle different Microsoft 365 services, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other policy management tools like manage_exchange_policies or manage_conditional_access_policies.

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, appropriate contexts, or when to choose this over other policy management tools. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and description.

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