manage_intune_macos_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 minimal context beyond this, mentioning 'device security and management settings' but not detailing specific destructive effects (e.g., data loss on delete), authentication needs, or rate limits. It doesn't contradict annotations, but provides only basic supplemental 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 states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a multi-action tool, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with key distinctions. There's no wasted verbiage, but it lacks structural elements like bullet points for complex operations.

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 (8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and annotations covering safety, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the domain but doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or operational nuances like how 'assign' differs from 'deploy'. For a tool with destructive potential and rich parameters, more contextual detail would be beneficial.

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 all parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how 'action' interacts with other parameters or clarifying 'settings' content. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 macOS configuration profiles and compliance policies for device security and management settings.' It specifies the resource (macOS policies) and the action (manage), but doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'manage_intune_macos_compliance' or 'manage_intune_macos_devices', which would require more specific 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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'manage_intune_macos_compliance' or 'manage_intune_windows_policies', nor does it specify prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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