Set service policy

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

Annotations already flag destructive/non-idempotent behavior, and the description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: the specific operational modes, the ability to override filters, and the required confirm flag. This is sufficient behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool, though it doesn't detail side effects on existing rules.

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 two sentences and front-loads the essential behavior. No filler or redundancy; every sentence contributes useful information. It efficiently conveys the core modes and a critical safety requirement.

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 destructive, non-idempotent tool with no output schema, the description covers the key selection and invocation concerns: what policy is changed, what modes are available, and the confirmation requirement. Minor gaps remain, such as conditional proxyLocationId usage and exact return/result behavior, but schema and annotations fill in most blanks.

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 already covers profile, service, mode, confirm, and proxyLocationId, though proxyLocationId has no description. The description adds plain-language meaning to the mode values (off, block, bypass, route through Control D) and makes confirm=true prominent, but it does not clarify the conditional relationship between redirect mode and proxyLocationId.

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 action and resource: turning a named service off, blocking, bypassing, or redirecting it through a Control D proxy. It distinguishes this from sibling rule-creation tools by focusing on service-level policy changes and the explicit mode vocabulary.

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 when to use the tool—when you need to change a named service's policy mode—but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. It does mention that service rules can override filters, which hints at precedence, but it lacks clear when-to-use vs. other rule tools guidance.

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