update_authorization_policy

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

The description only indicates mutation ('Update') but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, authorization requirements, side effects on dependent entities, or what happens if the policy does not exist. Since no annotations are present, the description carries the full burden and falls short.

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 concise with two sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides parameter details. It could be improved by front-loading more context, but it remains efficient.

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 presence of an output schema (not referenced) and the complexity of an update operation with sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, whether the update is partial or full, or how errors are handled. The agent would need to infer too much.

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 description adds meaning for the 'permissions_csv' parameter by stating it expects 'comma-separated permission strings.' However, it does not explain the 'name' or 'reference' parameters. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate more comprehensively but only partially does so.

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 'Update an authorization policy,' which clearly identifies the verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like create_authorization_policy or delete_authorization_group, and it lacks specificity on what constitutes an authorization 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when to update versus create, or any conditions that should be met before calling.

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