manage_authentication_strengths

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which already inform the agent this is a safe, non-destructive read operation. The description adds context by mentioning 'view and manage,' which could imply write capabilities, but this is clarified by the annotations. It doesn't provide additional behavioral details like rate limits, authentication needs, or response formats, relying on annotations for core safety information.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('View and manage authentication strength policies') and adds context about MFA requirements in Conditional Access. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating viewing and managing aspects.

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's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the what and why but lacks guidance on usage, parameter interactions, or output expectations. With annotations handling safety, it's minimally viable but could better support agent decision-making.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (action, policyId, policyType) and enums for action and policyType. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the differences between action values or when policyId is required. This meets the baseline for high 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 tool's purpose as 'View and manage authentication strength policies that define which authentication methods satisfy MFA requirements in Conditional Access.' It specifies both read ('view') and write ('manage') operations on a specific resource (authentication strength policies) with their functional context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'manage_conditional_access_policies' or 'manage_user_settings' that might overlap in domain.

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 mentions the tool's domain (Conditional Access MFA requirements) but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'manage_conditional_access_policies' that might handle related aspects. Usage is implied through the action parameter but not explained in the description.

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