ovo_set_policy

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'Configure' without mentioning side effects, reversibility, authorization requirements, or whether changes take effect immediately or persist. 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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object, with no redundant or extraneous information. It is concise and well-structured.

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 configuration tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It omits essential context such as the effect of setting these policies, whether protocolReference is required to arm the control loop, and how this tool relates to the broader OVO workflow.

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 only 20% (only protocolReference has a description). The description mentions the two policies but does not map them to specific parameters like dominancePolicy or controlEnabled, nor does it explain the enum values or the role of maxStepPerCycle. It adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Configure' and identifies two clear targets: the Russell→PAD dominance policy and the closed-loop control policy. This differentiates it from sibling tools like ovo_status or ovo_read, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus related tools such as ovo_arm_control or set_parameter. No prerequisites, conditions, or context are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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