create_access_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 it's a write operation and hints at parameter usage. It does not disclose side effects, idempotency, authorization requirements, or what happens on conflict (e.g., duplication).

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 extremely concise: three sentences that front-load the purpose and provide essential usage hints without any fluff or redundancy. Every sentence serves a clear 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?

Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, an output schema, and a large sibling set), the description is incomplete. It omits return value information (though output schema may help), does not explain all parameters, and gives no insight into when the tool is appropriate or how it interacts with other policies. It falls short of providing a complete picture for an agent.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that resources can be provided via 'resources_json' or simple fields and that user/group/role/access lists are comma-separated. However, it does not clarify many other parameters (service_name, policy_name, description) or the format of resources_json. This leaves significant gaps.

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 it creates an access-control policy, and the bold 'WRITE OPERATION' emphasizes the action. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'create_ranger_policy' which might be similar, leaving some 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?

The description provides some guidance on how to use parameters (e.g., comma-separated values, resource specification via JSON or simple fields) but lacks any indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites or contextual cues for selection are given.

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