provision-policy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explicitly flags WRITE OPERATION, notes PCE state changes, warns about user-approval pauses, and cautions that retries are inappropriate while waiting. It discloses the two-step token flow, though it leaves ambiguous how the token parameter is supplied since no token field appears in the schema.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, scope, write warning, client behavior, and confirmation flow. The write warning is placed prominently and the two-step behavior is communicated in a compact sequence.

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?

The description explains the operation well and partially covers return behavior by saying the first call returns a token. However, with no output schema and no token parameter in the input schema, the exact mechanism for passing the token back is unexplained, leaving an important gap for correct invocation.

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 already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, including the important 'provisions ALL pending changes' behavior for omitted hrefs. The description adds little beyond that, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Provision pending draft policy changes in the PCE.' It clarifies exactly what changes state, naming the affected entity types and the draft-to-active transition, which distinguishes it from siblings like compare-draft-active or enforcement-readiness.

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?

Explains when to use the tool: to provision pending draft changes, either all pending changes or specific items by href. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the described action and the two-step confirmation flow give clear usage context.

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