set_cooperation_policies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Set cooperation policies' and the return includes 'Success status and active policies', but fails to explain whether setting is additive or overwriting, what permissions are needed, or any side effects.

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 extremely concise, with two short sentences. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, some additional detail could be added without harming conciseness, so it is not a perfect 5.

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?

Given the tool is a setter with one parameter and an output schema exists, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not explain the expected structure of policies, error behavior, or how the output 'Success status and active policies' is formatted. More context would help the agent use it correctly.

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% (the 'policies' parameter has a description 'Cooperation policies to set'). However, the parameter is a freeform object with no constraints, and the description adds no structural hints or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does most of the work.

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 'Set cooperation policies' with a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like 'get_cooperation_policies' (retrieve) and 'send_cooperation_commands' (send commands), so an agent can easily understand its purpose.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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