manage_sharepoint_governance_policies

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and destructive, which the description does not contradict or elaborate on. It adds minimal context by listing policy types (e.g., sharing controls, access restrictions) but fails to detail critical behaviors like authentication requirements, rate limits, or the impact of destructive operations. With annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description adds some value but lacks depth.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose and scope. It avoids unnecessary details and wastes no words, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly improved by structuring it to highlight key actions or constraints, but overall, it is well-sized for its informational content.

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 rich annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: true), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage scenarios, behavioral nuances, or output expectations. The schema handles parameter documentation well, but the description does not compensate for the absence of an output schema or provide context on destructive operations, leaving gaps in completeness.

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?

The description adds no meaning beyond what the input schema provides. The schema has 100% description coverage, thoroughly documenting all 7 parameters, including enums and nested objects. The description mentions policy types like 'sharing controls' and 'access restrictions,' which loosely map to schema enums (e.g., 'sharingPolicy,' 'accessPolicy'), but this does not enhance understanding of parameter usage or semantics. Given 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 SharePoint governance policies including sharing controls, access restrictions, and site lifecycle management.' It specifies the verb ('manage') and resource ('SharePoint governance policies') with examples of what is managed. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'manage_sharepoint_sites' or 'manage_sharepoint_lists', which could handle related aspects of SharePoint management.

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 any prerequisites, such as requiring administrative permissions or specific contexts, nor does it differentiate it from sibling tools like 'manage_sharepoint_sites' or 'manage_conditional_access_policies', which might overlap in functionality. This lack of explicit usage context leaves the agent without clear direction.

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