set_network_policy

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

The description explains the behavioral impact of each policy level but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether changes affect active connections, require permissions, or are reversible). Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and more detail on side effects would be beneficial.

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: three bullet points for policy descriptions and a single line for the argument. No unnecessary words, and the structure aids readability.

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 setter tool with one parameter, the description covers the essential information: parameter definition and policy meanings. An output schema exists (not shown), so return value documentation is not needed. It lacks information on error handling (e.g., invalid policy value) but is otherwise complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by enumerating the allowed values ('strict', 'normal', 'offline') and explaining their meanings. It clearly documents the single required parameter. It could be improved by noting case sensitivity or exact format.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Set the current network access policy for all agents.' It identifies the action (set), the resource (network access policy), and the scope (all agents). This sufficiently distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_network_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 explains the three policy options and their effects, which helps the agent decide which policy to use. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., checking current policy with get_network_policy) or mention any prerequisites or side effects.

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