manage_dlp_policies

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, covering key behavioral traits. The description adds context by specifying the scope ('across Exchange, SharePoint, OneDrive, and Teams'), which is useful but does not elaborate on destructive effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or other operational details. It does not contradict annotations, so a baseline score is appropriate given the annotations provide 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 without unnecessary elaboration. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. This optimal structure earns a high score for conciseness.

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 complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and annotations that cover destructive and non-idempotent traits, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose and scope but lacks details on return values, error handling, or operational constraints. With annotations providing some behavioral context, it meets a basic threshold but leaves gaps for a tool with significant functionality.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the 'action' enum values or interactions between parameters. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is justified, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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: 'Manage Data Loss Prevention policies to protect sensitive data across Exchange, SharePoint, OneDrive, and Teams.' It specifies the verb ('manage'), resource ('Data Loss Prevention policies'), and scope ('across Exchange, SharePoint, OneDrive, and Teams'), but does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'manage_dlp_incidents' or other policy management tools, which would require explicit differentiation.

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 sibling tools such as 'manage_dlp_incidents' for handling incidents or other policy management tools, nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual usage scenarios. This lack of guidance leaves the agent without direction on tool selection.

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