get_write_capabilities

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the tool reports local policy and a host approval requirement, which is meaningful behavioral context for a permissions-introspection tool, but it omits that this is a non-mutating read, says nothing about the customer-scoped nature of the result, and does not mention whether policy results vary per host.

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?

A single short sentence with the key content front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the gaps elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, which lowers the bar. Still, for a policy/approval lookup with one undocumented required parameter and no usage guidance, the description leaves gaps an agent must guess at.

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 0% and the only parameter, customer_id, is undocumented in the schema. The description does not mention customer_id at all, so it adds no meaning about what scope the capability lookup applies to or why the customer is required.

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 verb 'describe' plus 'supported operations, local policy and the host approval requirement' conveys that this is an introspection/read tool about write permissions, which matches the name get_write_capabilities. However, it never names the resource concretely (write capabilities for what scope?) and gives no signal distinguishing it from the write-oriented siblings such as validate_create_batch or apply_approved_mutation_batch. The purpose is inferable but not sharply stated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no stated preconditions, and no reference to the sibling write tools. An agent must infer that this should be consulted before attempting a write batch, but the description never says so.

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