marrow_create_policy_profile

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explicitly labels itself as a 'Mutating call' and states the auth requirement ('requires a key with full scope'). However, it does not describe update semantics (e.g., whether existing rules are overwritten or merged) or any side effects on related governance data.

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 concise, consisting of two short sentences. The main action is front-loaded ('Create or update an explicit governance policy profile'), and the mutation/auth warning is a necessary and concise addition. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, mutation, and auth requirements. However, it omits update behavior (create vs. update distinction) and potential side effects. Given the moderate complexity and 100% schema coverage, the description is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all 3 parameters (name, rules, description), so the description adds little on parameter semantics. With schema coverage at 100%, the baseline of 3 applies; the description does not introduce additional context beyond what the schema already offers.

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 action: 'Create or update an explicit governance policy profile.' It uses a specific verb+resource combination and distinguishes it from sibling tools like marrow_policy_profiles (which likely lists profiles) and marrow_assign_project_policy_profile (which assigns profiles to projects). The term 'explicit' adds specificity.

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 minimal usage context: 'Mutating call; requires a key with full scope.' It implies this tool is for creating/updating policy profiles but does not mention when to prefer this over alternatives like marrow_policy_resolve or marrow_assign_project_policy_profile. No explicit exclusions or alternative conditions are given.

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