Api policies create

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

Annotations already supply readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavior beyond that and is actively misleading: 'viewed or edited' implies a read/update endpoint rather than a creation endpoint, and it never says what a created policy consists of or what happens on duplicate/idempotent calls (which matters because idempotentHint=false).

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?

It is only one sentence, but that sentence does not earn its place: it is boilerplate that misidentifies the resource and the operation. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than discipline.

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 create endpoint whose body schema is entirely opaque, with no output schema and no annotations conveying payload expectations, the description needed to explain the entity being created and its fields. It supplies neither, so an agent cannot invoke this correctly from the definition alone.

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?

The single parameter 'body' is an unconstrained object with additionalProperties=true and 0% schema description coverage, so the schema documents nothing. The description does not compensate at all — it names no fields, no required keys, no format constraints, leaving an agent with no way to construct a valid payload.

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 names the wrong resource entirely: the tool is ciso_assistant_api_policies_create (create an API policy under the policies endpoints), yet the text describes 'applied controls'. It also frames the operation as 'viewed or edited' rather than creation, so an agent reading only the description would form the wrong mental model of both subject and verb.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus policies_list, policies_update, policies_partial_update, or policies_batch_action_create, all of which appear in the sibling list. The description gives no prerequisites, no indication that a body payload is expected, and no exclusions.

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