agentgate_update_policy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Replace' without explaining side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites all fields, what happens to unspecified optional fields, or authorization requirements). This is insufficient for a mutation operation.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is concise, though the content is incomplete; every word serves a purpose, but critical details are missing.

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 lack of output schema, no annotations, and 5 parameters including required and optional ones, the description fails to provide sufficient context. It does not explain the return value, error conditions, or the effect on existing policy data, making it incomplete for an agent to reliably use.

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 covers all 5 parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% schema coverage. However, the description claims 'all fields required' while the schema marks only id, name, and rules as required; priority and enabled are optional. This contradiction misleads the agent about parameter requirements.

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 'Replace an existing policy', indicating the action and resource. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'agentgate_create_policy' or 'agentgate_delete_policy', though it could be more explicit about it being a full replacement.

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 notes 'all fields required', which provides usage guidance that the operation expects a complete definition. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like creating or partially updating, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context.

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