update_policy

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses immediate effect, no operator approval, auditability, and that reason does not gate the change. Covers key behavioral traits thoroughly.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose and key behavioral note. Every sentence adds value. No fluff or repetition.

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?

With 100% schema coverage and no output schema, description covers purpose, usage, and behavioral traits. Lacks explicit mention of return value or confirmation, but overall adequate for an update tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds minimal value: it re-contextualizes 'reason' for audit and non-gating, and mentions 'higher limits' which maps to parameters. No extra syntax or constraints beyond 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?

Description starts with a clear verb 'Updates' and resource 'operational policy'. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_policy' by specifying mutation and from others by naming the policy type. No ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'when you need higher limits, more allowed tokens, or contract whitelisting to complete a mission'. Mentions providing a reason for audit. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives but sufficient for typical usage.

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