Upload or replace OPA policy

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context: 'Replaces any existing policy' confirms destructive behavior, and 'uploaded as raw text/plain -- OPA parses it on the server side' clarifies data format and server processing.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. Front-loaded with the action and key behavior (upload, replace, format). Every sentence adds essential information.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects: replacement, raw text format, server parsing. It could mention error handling but is sufficient for typical use.

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?

Both parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Upload' and resource 'Rego policy' with ID assignment. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like opa_get_policy or rego_eval by specifying the action of uploading/replacing a policy.

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 implies usage for uploading a Rego policy but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., opa_delete_policy or opa_get_policy). No when-not-to-use or context for choice.

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