Save Governance

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not idempotent or destructive. The description adds the upsert semantics ('Save or update') and clarifies that 'governance' means 'approval pipeline'. However, it does not disclose whether the entire policy is replaced or merged, or any side effects beyond what annotations imply. Some value is added beyond 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 a single, clear sentence of 14 words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word contributes. No extraneous information or repetition.

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 tool has 4 parameters including a complex 'gates' array (though no nested object schema), no output schema, and moderate annotations. The description gives the core purpose but does not explain when to use it relative to sibling governance tools or how the gates parameter should be structured. It is adequate for a simple definition but lacks workflow context.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with descriptive parameter names and descriptions (agent_id, name, gates, entity_type). The description does not add extra meaning about parameters; it only repeats 'governance' which is already implied. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic load.

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 ('Save or update') and clearly identifies the resource ('governance (approval pipeline) policy for an agent's git repo'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_governance, delete_governance, and sync_governance by indicating this is the write/update 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this should be used to create or modify governance policies, nor does it reference related tools or contexts like 'use get_governance to read, delete_governance to remove'. There is no exclusion or explicit usage context.

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