Set policy

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description correctly signals mutation by saying it changes confirmation needs. It adds scope context but does not mention dry-run behavior, idempotency, audit-trail effects, or persistence; these are covered in the schema but not in the description itself.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the required inputs are stated clearly.

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?

For a tool with 7 parameters and an output schema, the description plus schema is largely sufficient. It captures the core behavior and audience; optional parameters are well documented in the schema, though the description could have briefly mentioned dry-run or audit-trail behavior.

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 the schema carries parameter meaning. The description only restates that tool_name and risk are needed, which is already in the required array, and adds no extra semantics for scope, member, for_member, dry_run, or idempotency_key.

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 ('Changes') and a clear resource ('how much confirmation a tool needs'), plus scope ('for everyone or for one member'). It is easily distinguished from siblings like confirm_action/reject_action, which handle pending actions rather than setting policy.

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?

Gives clear context that this tool adjusts confirmation requirements and explicitly notes the required inputs. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended use case is apparent.

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