ilm_add_policy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('bind') which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't describe what happens during binding (e.g., whether it's immediate, requires specific permissions, affects existing data, or has side effects). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 appropriately sized with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation and an example. The structure is logical and front-loaded with the main function. The example is helpful but could potentially be integrated more seamlessly into the flow.

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 2-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool does and what parameters it accepts. However, it lacks important context about behavioral aspects (permissions, side effects, timing) and doesn't explain what the tool returns, leaving gaps in completeness.

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?

The description explicitly lists both parameters ('index' and 'policy_id') with Chinese labels that clarify their purpose, and provides a concrete example showing how to use them. With 0% schema description coverage, this parameter documentation in the description fully compensates for the schema gap, adding substantial value beyond the bare input 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 clearly states the action ('给索引绑定' - bind to index) and resource ('ILM 策略' - ILM policy), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ilm_remove_policy' or 'ilm_policy_get', but the verb 'bind' is specific enough to convey the core function.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or comparison with sibling ILM tools (e.g., 'ilm_remove_policy' for removal, 'ilm_policy_get' for retrieval). The description only states what it does, not when it should be used.

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