security_create_policy

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the action. It does not mention that creating a policy modifies database security, may require RLS to be enabled, or that the policy will affect future queries. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the essential action. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices useful context, but for conciseness alone, it scores high.

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?

This is a complex security tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, yet the description provides minimal context. It does not explain the workflow (e.g., enabling RLS first), the purpose of expressions, or the impact on table permissions. While the schema covers parameter names, the description lacks the broader context an agent needs to use the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which already documents each parameter's purpose. The description does not clarify relationships between parameters (e.g., using_expression vs with_check_expression), but the schema provides adequate individual descriptions.

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 'Create a Row Level Security policy' clearly states the action (create) and the resource (Row Level Security policy). It distinguishes from sibling tools like security_drop_policy, security_list_policies, and security_enable_rls, which perform different actions.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., RLS must be enabled first), nor does it contrast with sibling tools such as security_enable_rls or security_test_policy. This leaves the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

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