delete_tool_policy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool removes a policy, implying mutation, but does not mention side effects, irreversibility, or error conditions (e.g., if the policy does not exist).

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 with two sentences, but the Args section is somewhat redundant with the schema. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary detail.

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 omits important context such as return value (though an output schema exists), behavior on missing policy, or any prerequisites. Given the tool's mutating nature and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete.

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 adds meaning by stating that tool_name is 'Name of the tool to remove the policy for'. This clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's minimal type definition.

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 uses a specific verb 'remove' and resource 'local enforcement policy for a tool', clearly stating the action and object. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like 'create_tool_policy' and '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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a policy should be removed or prerequisites like policy existence. The context signals indicate siblings for creation and listing, but no usage hints are given.

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