project_policy

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses material behavior: dry_run defaults to true, saves happen within the owner's authorization, several policy keys and defaults are listed, and custom archive folders without site.json remain read-only with policy stored outside that folder. This is unusually rich operational context 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 purpose is front-loaded, and the dense paragraph contains mostly useful operational details. It is somewhat cramped: defaults, key semantics, the read alternative, and the archive-folder caveat are packed into one block, reducing readability.

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 output schema and annotations, the description covers the main call context: policy mutation, dry-run behavior, authorization, key defaults, and a read-alternative. It still omits important operational details like how existing policy is merged and what the project string should contain.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description does significant work by naming the expected changes keys and their defaults, including owner_tasks fields. It does not explain the project parameter's expected format or whether changes are partial merges, so it is strong but not fully compensating.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Configure this project's policy only.' It also names project_view as the read-side alternative, so an agent can tell this is for policy mutation rather than general project viewing or saving.

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?

It clearly implies use when configuring project policy and explicitly routes reading of policy, resources and waiting questions to project_view what='workflow'. It lacks explicit when-not guidance or mention of other project-related siblings such as project_save, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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