create_masking_policy

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states it's a write operation and gives data_mask_type examples. Missing details like whether existing policies are overwritten, required permissions, error conditions, or confirmation of success/failure. Minimal transparency.

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 very short (two lines plus example list). It uses bold for emphasis but lacks structure. It could be improved with bullet points or clearer separation of intent vs examples. Still, it is not overly verbose and front-loads the core purpose.

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 11 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not cover most parameters, does not explain the output schema (even though one exists), and omits error handling or return behavior. The depth is insufficient for a complex creation 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?

The schema has 11 parameters with 0% coverage (no descriptions in schema). The description adds value by listing example values for data_mask_type (MASK, MASK_SHOW_LAST_4, etc.). However, it does not explain the other 10 parameters like service_name, policy_name, users, groups, etc., leaving 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 a data-masking policy, explicitly noting the policyType=1. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_access_policy or create_tag_based_policy. The verb 'create' and resource 'masking policy' are specific and unambiguous.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While siblings include various policy creation tools, the description lacks any context about prerequisites, conflicts, or typical scenarios. The only hint is 'WRITE OPERATION', which is too generic to guide selection.

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