update_policy_gate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses 'Partially updates' and that null clears the restriction for modelAllowlist. However, it does not mention permissions, idempotency, return value, or side effects, limiting 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 plus examples, front-loaded with purpose and scope, and contains no fluff. Every part adds value.

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 covers fields and gives usage examples but lacks details on return value, prerequisites, or implications of settings (e.g., enforceMode). For a mutation tool with no output schema or annotations, more context would be beneficial.

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?

With 33% schema description coverage, the description adds value by listing all modifiable fields and explaining the null behavior for modelAllowlist. It does not provide detailed semantics for other fields, but compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 resource 'runtime policy gate', lists the modifiable fields, and provides examples. This distinguishes it from siblings like create, delete, and get.

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 mentions 'Pro+ only' as a licensing restriction but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or alternatives like create_policy_gate. Examples give usage context, but no exclusion criteria.

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