slm_policy_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states this is a creation tool (implies mutation), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires admin permissions, if policies are immediately active, what happens on conflicts, or if there are rate limits. The example shows parameters but doesn't explain system behavior beyond the basic function.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, parameters, example) and uses bullet-like formatting. Every sentence earns its place, though the parameter list is lengthy (necessary given 12 parameters). The example is helpful but could be more concise. Overall efficient for the complexity.

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?

Given 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job with parameters but has significant gaps. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (success/failure, policy ID, etc.), doesn't cover error conditions, and provides minimal behavioral context. For a complex creation tool with no structured metadata, this is adequate but incomplete.

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 provides excellent parameter semantics despite 0% schema description coverage. It lists all 12 parameters with clear Chinese explanations, specifies defaults for indices, creation_schedule, and others, and provides meaningful context about what each parameter controls (e.g., '要备份的索引', '创建快照的 cron 表达式'). This fully compensates for the lack of schema 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 clearly states '创建快照生命周期策略' (create snapshot lifecycle policy), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like slm_policy_delete, slm_policy_get, etc., but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like ilm_policy_create or snapshot_create beyond the 'slm' prefix.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a repository first), when this tool is appropriate versus manual snapshot creation, or how it relates to other SLM tools like slm_policy_start/stop. The example shows usage but doesn't explain context.

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