sap_set_policy_profile

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with this by describing a session-level configuration change rather than a data mutation. The description adds behavioral transparency by explaining that the profile change is capped by the server's startup profile and that the default is 'full', which are important operational details beyond the 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 concise and well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and then efficiently explaining the profile options and restrictions. Every sentence contributes value, from the one-line purpose to the bullet-like list and the final note on default and restriction. There is no wasted text.

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 that an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. The description covers the purpose, profile semantics, default behavior, and restrictions, which is complete for a simple configuration tool. An agent has all the information needed to select the appropriate profile and understand the limitations.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining what each enum value (exploration, operator, full) means in terms of tool visibility. This adds meaning beyond the raw enum names, making the parameter's semantics clear. The single required parameter is well-documented through the profile 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?

The description clearly states 'Switch the active policy profile for this session' and then explains what each profile does, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by describing the session-level configuration effect, which is unique among the listed SAP tools.

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 to use the tool by explaining the three profile options (exploration, operator, full) and their tool visibility effects. It also notes the restriction that a session can only restrict, never widen, and mentions the default profile and server-side cap, which gives practical usage guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state alternatives or scenarios where you would choose this over other configuration tools, though that's not critical here.

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