create_oltp_access_policy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, required permissions, or whether the operation is destructive. The description focuses on rule structure but omits behavioral context.

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 concise, with a clear purpose sentence followed by a structured bullet list for the rules parameter. It is front-loaded and well-organized, though it could be slightly more compact 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 the complexity (7 params, 6 required, no output schema described but exists), the description covers the core purpose and rules structure well. However, it lacks information about return values, error conditions, or prerequisites. Since output schema exists, return value explanation is not required, but the description could still mention that it returns the created policy.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by detailing the exact structure of the 'rules' parameter—specifying required fields (type, actors, objects) with subfield types and constraints (e.g., 'condition': 'equals'). This clarifies what would otherwise be vague 'List of OLTP access rule objects' in the schema.

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 'Create an access management policy for an OLTP datasource,' providing a specific verb ('Create'), resource ('access management policy'), and context ('OLTP datasource'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_policy' (general) and 'create_snowflake_access_policy' (Snowflake-specific).

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 for OLTP datasources but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'create_policy', 'create_snowflake_access_policy'). There is no guidance on prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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