plan_augmentation_policy

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states that the tool 'plans' a policy, omitting whether it is read-only or mutating, what side effects exist, or what happens to existing policies. The term 'preview-gated' is not explained, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, which is concise but too brief. It front-loads the main purpose but sacrifices necessary detail, failing to provide adequate context.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain return values. With 0% parameter coverage, no behavioral transparency, and no usage guidance, the description is severely incomplete for a tool with five parameters and multiple sibling alternatives.

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 0%, yet the description only mentions two parameters (task and objective) while there are five parameters total (task, targets, intensity, objective, feedback_tags). The description adds no meaning to the undocumented parameters.

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 tool plans an augmentation policy for a task and objective. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like plan_augmentation_policy_candidates or plan_policy_iteration, and the term 'preview-gated' is unexplained jargon.

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 such as plan_augmentation_policy_candidates or plan_policy_iteration. There is no context on prerequisites or typical usage scenarios.

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