bourne_site_policy_claim

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

Annotations already establish this is not read-only and not destructive. The description goes further by disclosing that it appends, stores no source document, fetches no URL, runs no command, and does not modify previous claims. This adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotation flags.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence contributes: what it does, what the parameters mean, when to use it, which sibling to use instead, and what side effects it does not have. No wasted words.

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 policy-writing tool with a rich input schema and output schema, the description supplies the missing strategic context: durable append semantics, placement before candidate generation, and the distinction from discovery. An agent has enough information to choose and call the tool correctly at a high level.

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%, so the schema carries the full semantic weight for both `reference` and `claim`. The description adds a concise restatement of what each parameter contains, but no significant meaning beyond the 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 states a specific verb ('Append') and a specific resource ('one durable structured policy claim and provenance record to an existing configured site'). It also names the sibling tool `bourne_site_discover` to make the boundary explicit, so an agent can distinguish this from the discovery workflow.

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 explicitly says to use this tool for 'reviewed site constraints or advice before candidate generation' and directs observation of live infrastructure to `bourne_site_discover` instead. This gives clear when-to-use and alternative routing.

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