sophos_update_policy

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive nature. The description adds the list of modifiable fields but no additional behavioral traits like authentication needs or side effects.

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 efficiently communicates the core purpose and modifiable fields without superfluous words.

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 straightforward update tool with well-documented parameters in the schema, the description adequately covers the action and scope. However, it omits details like partial update behavior or error handling, which are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description merely restates parameter names (name, enabled, priority, settings) without adding new semantic detail beyond schema descriptions. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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 specifies the verb 'Update' and the resource 'existing endpoint policy', listing the modifiable aspects (name, enabled state, priority, settings). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sophos_create_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?

The description implies usage for updating an existing policy but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use.

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