update_snowflake_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 states the tool 'Replaces' all three fields, implying overwrite behavior, but does not disclose potential side effects, authorization requirements, or whether it's idempotent. Minimal transparency.

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 two sentences: the first clearly states the purpose, the second explains what is replaced and provides a helpful reference. No wasted words; highly efficient.

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 tool is straightforward with 4 parameters and an output schema. The description covers the core operation and directs to the create tool for rule format. No significant gaps given the complexity.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by referencing create_snowflake_access_policy for the rule format, which helps clarify the structure of the 'rules' parameter beyond the schema's type definition.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'existing Snowflake access management policy', and specifies that it replaces name, description, and rules. It distinguishes itself from the sibling create tool by focusing on update.

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 by stating it updates an existing policy, but does not explicitly state when to use or when to avoid. It references create_snowflake_access_policy for rule format, which provides some guidance, but lacks exclusions or alternatives.

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