guardentry_update_policy

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a version snapshot is saved before each update, which adds useful behavioral context, but it omits permissions, replacement semantics, rollback behavior, and failure modes. More detail is needed for a mutation tool.

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 (two sentences) and front-loads the primary verb and resource. The list of categories is useful, but the inaccurate 'allowed tools' wording slightly detracts from precision.

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 tool with 8 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description provides a clear purpose and notes version snapshots, but lacks critical context such as whether unspecified fields are unchanged or reset, required permissions, and return values. It is minimally adequate but has clear 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds a category mapping but includes an imprecise phrase: 'allowed tools' is not a schema property (there is 'blocked_tools' and 'allowed_actions'). Baseline 3 applies because the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 tool updates an agent policy's rules and enumerates the specific categories (blocked actions, allowed tools, require-approval patterns, risk tolerance, mode). This distinguishes it from sibling read tools like get_agent_policy and confirm_policy.

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 clear context that this tool is for modifying policy rules, and its purpose is obvious given siblings like get_agent_policy/confirm_policy. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for other operations.

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