set_policies

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that unlisted slots keep their current policy, NONE clears slots, and slot type constraints exist. However, it lacks information on prerequisites, side effects, or validation outcomes, which would be needed for full transparency.

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 a structured Args section and examples. It could be slightly more organized, but every sentence provides value.

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 of setting policies, the description covers format, slot types, and references get_policies. It does not mention prerequisites or validation, but an output schema exists to handle return values, so 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds significant meaning: format, examples, NONE usage, and slot type rules. It compensates well, though it defers to get_policies for full details.

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 sets policy cards in government slots, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the getter tools in siblings, especially get_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 explicitly references get_policies for available policies and slot indices, and explains slot type constraints. It does not provide explicit when-not scenarios, but the context is clear enough for proper usage.

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