ise_openapi_radius_policy_set_update

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose that this is a write/update operation with potential side effects on network access policy, whether partial updates are supported, or what gets returned on success/failure. The tool name implies 'update' but behavioral details beyond that are absent.

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?

Single-line description with domain context, tool group, and endpoint. Efficient and to the point with zero wasted words. The bracketed context and endpoint reference are useful though could arguably be trimmed.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested object parameter (data). The description provides no guidance on the shape of the request body, no indication of what the response contains, and no mention of how to obtain a valid policy set object for updating. For a write operation on network access policy, this is under-specified.

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% with descriptions for all 3 params. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond what's in the schema. The 'data' param is just 'JSON request body' with no mention that it should contain the full policy set representation for a PUT. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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?

Description states 'Update a policy set' with the specific resource (Network Access policy set) and HTTP method (PUT). The '[Policy: Network Access]' prefix adds domain context. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from the TACACS policy set update sibling, but the 'Network Access' qualifier implies differentiation.

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 on when to use this vs alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like fetching an existing policy set first (via ise_openapi_radius_policy_set_get), or warn that a full object is typically required for PUT operations. The deployment parameter hints at multi-deployment context but doesn't explain the selection logic.

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