create_tool_policy

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

No annotations exist, so the description fully handles transparency. It discloses in-process evaluation, lack of API hop, and bilateral request+response signing via tool_endpoint, providing valuable behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

Description is front-loaded with key info and well-structured with an Args list, though it could be slightly more concise; it remains efficient without unnecessary words.

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 7 parameters and no annotations, the description covers creation and update semantics, behavioral traits, and parameters. An output schema exists to explain return values, so overall completeness is adequate.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description lists and explains all 7 parameters (tool_name, risk_level, require_approval, max_calls_per_minute, blocked, hidden, tool_endpoint) with clear meanings, fully compensating for missing schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the tool upserts a local tool enforcement policy, specifying its use in gate_action and enforced_tool_call, and distinguishes it by mentioning in-process evaluation and bilateral signing via tool_endpoint.

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?

Description implies the tool is for creating or updating policies and mentions its integration points, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus sibling tools like check_policy or delete_tool_policy.

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