create_access_control_policy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It merely calls the operation a 'mutation', but gives no details about side effects, required permissions, error behavior, or return values. This is insufficient.

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 a single unstructured line mixing the operation name, variable list, and JSON example. It front-loads no useful purpose and repeats information already present in the schema. The variable enumeration is redundant, and the example is not clearly separated or explained.

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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description provides almost no context. It doesn't explain what the tool does, when to use it, what the parameters mean, or what output to expect. It is merely a GraphQL operation template, far from sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The schema descriptions are minimal ('GraphQL: String'), but the description includes an example with placeholder values for all parameters, including the input object's fields (accessGroups, customerId, description, name, resource, users). This adds some structural guidance, yet leaves parameters like after, first, notFilter, and order unexplained.

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 starts with 'DRP Access Control · mutation createAccessControlPolicy', which essentially restates the tool name without explaining what it does. It does not provide a plain-language purpose or distinguish the tool from siblings like update_access_control_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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only lists variables and an example payload, with no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or when to choose another tool.

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