put_resource_policy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the general effect—attaching a policy—but does not disclose that this likely replaces an existing policy, whether permissions are required, or what side effects occur. This is a meaningful gap for a mutation tool.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main usage trigger, followed by the action and argument hints. Every sentence contributes value, with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

The description covers when, what, and the arguments, making it minimally usable. But for a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, it should also mention overwrite behavior, required permissions, or what the response contains. These omissions leave the definition incomplete.

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 0%, so the Args section adds needed meaning: resource_arn is a Key ARN and policy is a JSON policy document string. However, it provides no deeper semantics such as policy syntax requirements, size limits, or examples, so it only partially compensates for the bare 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 clearly states what the tool does: 'Attach an IAM resource policy to a key.' It also names the specific use cases—granting cross-account access or restricting principal usage—which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_resource_policy and delete_resource_policy.

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 opens with explicit 'Call this when...' guidance for two clear scenarios. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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