manage_rpz_policies

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), the description explains the dry_run parameter, revealing that delete is non-destructive by default and requires explicit opt-in to execute. This is valuable behavioral context not evident from annotations alone. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with a concise purpose sentence followed by Args, Returns, and Examples. Each section provides necessary information without fluff, and the examples are particularly useful. The length is appropriate given the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers all actions, parameters, and even provides a fallback to manage_dns_zone for zone lifecycle. With an output schema present, the vague Returns line is acceptable. The tool is fully contextualized within its sibling set and usage scenarios.

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 has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description's Args section compensates fully by explaining every parameter, including required conditions and an example rdata structure. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 manages RPZ rules, defined as the individual DNS override entries within an RPZ zone. It also distinguishes from manage_dns_zone by explicitly directing zone lifecycle operations elsewhere, making the purpose 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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool instead of manage_dns_zone for RPZ zone lifecycle. The examples also illustrate various actions (list, get, create, update, delete) and parameter combinations, providing clear usage context. The dry_run guidance for delete adds important when-to-use detail.

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