create_tool_policy

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

No annotations were provided. The description details the upsert behavior, in-process evaluation, and the optional forwarding/signing functionality, but does not mention required permissions or potential side effects like overwriting existing policies.

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: a single sentence for overall purpose, a sentence for key behavior, and a structured Args list. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the complexity (7 params, no annotations, output schema exists), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, behavior, parameter details, and usage context with sibling tools. No gaps remain.

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 fully explains all 7 parameters, including allowed values for risk_level, meaning of defaults (e.g., 0 = unlimited), and conditional logic (e.g., require_approval applies to high-risk).

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 upserts a local tool enforcement policy, specifies its use by gate_action and enforced_tool_call, and distinguishes it from siblings like delete_tool_policy or list_tool_policies.

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 context on when policies are evaluated (in-process) and how tool_endpoint is used, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings or when not to use it.

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