manage_information_protection_policies

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds context about what's being managed (data classification, encryption, rights management) but doesn't elaborate on destructive consequences, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions beyond what annotations provide.

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 communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a multi-action tool, though it could be slightly more specific about the management scope.

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 complex tool with 6 parameters, nested objects, and destructive operations, the description provides basic purpose but lacks critical context. No output schema exists, so the description should ideally mention return values or success indicators. The combination of annotations and schema covers safety and parameters, but behavioral expectations remain underspecified.

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 description coverage, the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific context beyond the schema's descriptions. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage through the schema alone.

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 verb ('manage') and resource ('Azure Information Protection policies') with specific domains ('data classification, encryption, and rights management'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'manage_defender_policies' or 'manage_dlp_policies' by specifying the AIP domain, but doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. With many sibling tools for policy management, this lack of differentiation leaves the agent guessing about tool selection.

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