update_global_policies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the read-modify-write pattern and full-object replacement semantics, which is important risk-related behavior. It stops short of stating permission needs, reversibility, or global impact, so it is not a 5.

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?

Three sentences, no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the two usage instructions each carry essential safety/behavioral information.

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 definition gives enough to perform the call safely: what resource, what to read first, and how to structure the update. It could add impact/rollback details for a global VDI mutation, but the output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes the full-object usage pattern. The description adds policy-area examples, but no additional structure, types, or field list, so it stays at the baseline for well-covered parameters.

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?

Description names the specific operation (update), the resource (global VDI policies), and the policy areas (USB redirection, clipboard, multimedia redirection). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling get_global_policies, which is the matching read operation.

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?

Provides an explicit prerequisite and workflow: call get_global_policies first, modify only intended fields, and pass the full object back. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the scope is specific enough for an agent to select it over other update tools.

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