configure_policy

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

Annotations include only readOnlyHint=false, which indicates a write operation, and the description's 'Configures or updates' confirms mutation. However, the description does not disclose side effects such as whether existing rules are overwritten, whether the change is reversible, permission requirements, or any validation behavior. With minimal annotation coverage, more transparency is needed.

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 concise sentence with no redundancy. However, the phrase 'parameter A' is vague and under-specified, making the sentence less useful than its brevity suggests. It is economical but not fully informative.

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?

This is a mutation tool with 6 parameters, nested objects, and an output schema, yet the description provides almost no contextual guidance beyond the basic action. The agent is left to infer update semantics, failure modes, and how the complex policy fields relate to one another. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the description still lacks sufficient context for safe invocation.

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%, so each of the 6 parameters is already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which matches the baseline scenario where the schema carries the burden. No deduction is warranted, but no additional value is added either.

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 states a specific verb ('Configures or updates') and a resource ('Enterprise Custom Policy rules'), which distinguishes it from the listed siblings at a high level. However, 'parameter A' is an unexplained placeholder that weakens clarity and would confuse an agent.

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, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The sibling tools appear unrelated, so while confusion is unlikely, the agent receives no context about typical scenarios, sequencing, or whether this tool should be used before/after other operations.

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