Create RAI Policy

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds useful context about the types of checks a policy can include, but does not disclose side effects, overwrite behavior, or how the policy takes effect. No contradiction with 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, front-loaded sentence that names the action and object immediately. It is free of filler and every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 create tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the combination of description and schema covers how to invoke it. However, it does not explain what happens after creation (e.g., whether the policy is immediately active, how it binds to agents) or describe the return value. Adequate for basic invocation but not fully context-rich.

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 71% and the schema already provides meaningful descriptions for most parameters (thresholds, booleans, topics). The description's parenthetical adds a high-level grouping of parameter families but no additional syntax or interaction details, so it stays at the baseline for good schema 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 ('Create') and specific resource ('Responsible-AI guardrail policy'), and enumerates the guardrail categories (toxicity, prompt-injection, NSFW, banned topics). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lyzr_rai_list_policies, lyzr_rai_get_policy, and lyzr_rai_delete_policy.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. It does not mention alternatives like listing, getting, or deleting policies, nor does it state preconditions such as whether an agent must exist first. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Create'.

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