policy_manage

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds a meaningful limitation (no job approval) and clarifies that the tool works on policy defaults. It goes beyond structured data without contradicting 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 two sentences, front-loaded with a clear verb+resource summary and immediately followed by a critical usage constraint. No redundant or extraneous content.

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 tool has 4 parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, yet the description omits details about parameter behavior, default values, or return information. While purpose is clear, the lack of parameter context makes the tool hard to invoke correctly without external knowledge.

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 description must compensate, but it only explains the action (get/update) and ignores parameters like confirm, requireApproval, and approvalTtlSeconds. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but no additional meaning is provided.

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 'Read or update risk policy defaults,' naming the resource and supported actions. It also explicitly differentiates this tool from job approval, aligning with sibling tools like job_start and distinguishing its scope.

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 explicit when-not-to-use guidance: 'This tool cannot approve a job,' and names alternatives ('local dashboard or interactive CLI'). This clear exclusion helps an agent choose the right tool for job approvals versus policy management.

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