create_agent_context

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

The description implies a write operation (creates) and mentions automatic policy enforcement, but without annotations, it does not disclose side effects, permissions required, reversibility, or error conditions. This is insufficient for a creation tool.

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 consists of two sentences: a deprecation notice and a purpose statement. It is extremely concise, front-loaded with important context, and contains no superfluous text.

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 the complexity (5 params, creation semantic, deprecation), the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, typical use cases, or how the policy chain relates to other contexts. Combined with missing annotations and output schema, the tool feels underspecified.

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?

All 5 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the schema already conveys their meaning. The description adds no additional parameter information, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 tool creates an enforcement context that applies a 3-signature policy chain, which is a specific action. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like 'create_policy_context', and the deprecation note may confuse agents about its current utility.

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 deprecation note provides a 'when not to use' by directing to a REST API, but there is no guidance on when to use this tool (e.g., for legacy systems) or alternatives among siblings. The description lacks positive usage context.

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