sentinel_add_policy_rule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states the core mutation (granting access) but doesn't disclose whether the operation is additive vs. replacive (e.g., what happens if the rule already exists), whether it requires prior server registration, idempotency behavior, or consequences if serverName/agentId don't exist. For a policy-mutating tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place. The first states the core purpose clearly, the second encodes the wildcard usage pattern. Zero waste, perfectly front-loaded with the action.

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 4-parameter policy tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the primary function and the special wildcard case. However, it doesn't address edge behaviors like duplicate rules, missing agent/server, or what the response indicates. Given no annotations or output schema exist, the description should carry more of the behavioral burden, making this adequate but not complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds the critical wildcard semantics for toolName ("*"), which is beyond the schema's generic 'Tool name to grant access to, or "*" for all tools'. The maxAmount parameter is documented only in the schema but not elaborated in the description, though the schema covers it adequately at 100% coverage.

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 action: 'Grant an agent access to a specific tool on a specific server.' It uses a specific verb (grant) with clear resources (agent, tool, server). While it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, it's distinct from sentinel_remove_policy_rule (which is the inverse operation) and sentinel_check_agent_access (which checks rather than grants).

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 implies when to use it (when you want to grant tool access) but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or reference alternatives. It does note the wildcard usage pattern ('Use toolName="*" to grant access to all tools'), which is helpful guidance. However, no exclusions or differentiation from the remove/check siblings is provided.

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