update_policy

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that it is a write operation recorded in the audit log, applies immediately, and unknown keys are rejected. It could benefit from mentioning authorization requirements, but the provided details are useful.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage steps and effects. It is reasonably concise with about 5 sentences, though it could be tightened slightly without losing clarity.

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?

Given one complex parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow, constraints (full replacement, unknown keys rejected), and effects (immediate, audited). It lacks error handling details but is sufficient for a mutation tool.

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 description explains the 'policy' parameter: a complete object from get_policy with modifications, and unknown keys are rejected. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, which only defines it as an object with additionalProperties. Schema coverage is 0% but description compensates well.

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 states 'Replace the organisation policy configuration' and explicitly says the full policy object must be supplied, not a partial patch. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling 'get_policy' which retrieves the current policy, and other update tools for different resources.

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 instructs to 'Retrieve the current policy with get_policy, modify the desired fields, then submit,' providing a clear workflow. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the usage context is well-defined.

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