set_governance_policy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates the policy affects future requests, which is helpful, but it omits details about reversibility, scope (e.g., global vs per-session), or authorization requirements. The description is adequate but not thorough.

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 that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It contains no unnecessary words and efficiently conveys the tool's function.

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 tool with three boolean parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. However, it lacks important context such as whether the policy is persistent across sessions, if it can be overridden, or what the default state is. The depth is moderately sufficient but could be improved.

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%, and the schema already describes each boolean parameter with defaults. The description adds no new meaning beyond listing the parameters in parentheses. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Set', the resource 'active governance policy', and specifies it controls which write operations (create, update, delete) are permitted for future requests. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which appear to set governance policies.

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 implies the tool is used to control write permissions, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives, any prerequisites, or when not to use it. The purpose is clear enough for straightforward selection among siblings.

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