hmc_modify_password_policy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states that only supplied fields are changed (partial update) and that activation/deactivation is not a direct field change but requires a PolicyType=status query path via the console. This is significant added context. However, it does not mention required permissions, error conditions, or reversibility, which would make it more transparent.

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 only three sentences, with each sentence adding distinct value: purpose, partial-update behavior, prerequisites, activation exclusion, and return value. It is well-structured, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no filler or redundant 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 the tool has 10 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description provides essential context: how to use it safely (list first), what it changes, and what it cannot do. The output schema exists, so return details are covered externally. It could be more complete by mentioning validation rules or prerequisites, but for a modify operation it covers the key contextual gaps.

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% parameter description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does convey the key semantic that omitted fields are not changed, which is critical for the optional parameters. However, it does not describe individual parameters (e.g., pwage, hist_size, min_length) or their valid ranges/constraints. The parameter names are suggestive but not fully defined, leaving some ambiguity.

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 begins with 'Modify an existing HMC password policy.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like hmc_create_password_policy, hmc_delete_password_policy, and hmc_list_password_policies. It also clarifies that only supplied fields are changed, reinforcing the modify intent.

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 instructs to use hmc_list_password_policies to confirm the current state before calling, which is a direct usage guideline. It also states that to activate or deactivate a policy, the HMC console must be used instead, providing a clear exclusion and alternative. This is exactly the kind of when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance needed.

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