ops_access_policy_set

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions switching runtime state but fails to disclose persistence (session vs permanent), validation behavior (what happens if profile doesn't exist), or side effects on existing operations.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and target. No redundant or filler text. However, extreme brevity is inappropriate given the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 state-changing operation with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. Missing: valid profile values, purpose of 'reason' field, error conditions, and confirmation of success/failure behavior.

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 0%. While 'profile' is implicitly contextualized as the access-control profile to activate, valid values/format are not specified. The 'reason' parameter is completely undocumented despite being available for audit/compliance purposes.

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 uses specific verb 'Switch' and identifies the resource as 'active Slack access-control profile', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like ops_access_request (requesting) or ops_access_policy_info (querying). It clarifies scope by mentioning 'MCP runtime state'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ops_access_request or ops_access_approve. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether to verify available profiles first using ops_access_policy_info).

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