update_access_control_policy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states it is a 'mutation' (which the name implies) and shows an example with add/remove/replace operations, but does not explain consequences, required permissions, idempotency, or return values.

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 brief but unstructured dump of variable names and a truncated JSON example. It lacks a front-loaded purpose statement, and the cut-off example suggests incompleteness, making it hard to parse and use effectively.

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, none of which are explained in context, and no output schema or annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not explain how the pagination-like parameters relate to the mutation, what the mutation does, or what the response contains. The example is truncated, compounding the incompleteness.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example structure for 'input' (with accessGroups add/remove/replace), which is helpful for constructing the parameter. However, it does not clarify the meaning or purpose of the cursor/pagination variables (after, first, notFilter, order, etc.) or their dual sets, so value over schema is marginal.

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 begins with 'DRP Access Control · mutation updateAccessControlPolicy', which merely restates the tool name and labels it as a mutation. It never explicitly says 'Updates an access control policy' or describes the operation's effect. The example input hints at modifying access groups but does not clarify the overall 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like update_access_control_policies, create_access_control_policy, or delete_access_control_policy. The description only lists variables and an example, offering no contextual or comparative usage information.

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