create_catalog_ui_policy

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the [Write] prefix and the catalog item form scope, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as whether duplicate policies are allowed or how conditions are evaluated. With annotations present, this level is acceptable but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the verb and scope without any fluff. It is exactly as concise as it needs to be.

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 simple create operation with four parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core purpose but does not mention the return value or any special behavior (e.g., what happens if the catalog item ID is invalid). It is adequate but lacks additional context that would help an agent understand prerequisites or side effects.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter's meaning. The description adds no parameter information beyond that, so it does not compensate or enhance the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('UI policy') scoped to 'a catalog item form', clearly distinguishing it from the generic create_ui_policy sibling. It is immediately obvious what this tool does and how it differs from similar tools.

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 usage: use this when creating a UI policy specifically for a catalog item form. It provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as 'for other forms use create_ui_policy'. This is clear enough for most cases.

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