update_local_in_policy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses partial-update semantics ('Only the specified fields will be updated') and describes optional fields, but does not mention permissions, ADOM lock/commit requirements, reversibility, or side effects of changing a local-in policy.

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 purpose and partial-update behavior are front-loaded, followed by a structured Args section and a short example. It is appropriately sized for a 17-parameter tool, though the Returns section is somewhat redundant because an output schema exists.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, all parameters, partial-update behavior, return shape, and an example. It could be more complete by mentioning operational requirements such as ADOM locking or committing changes, but it is otherwise sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all 17 parameters with meaningful labels, marks optionals, gives accepted values for action/status, and explains negate and HA management interface semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing IPv4 local-in policy.' The IPv4 qualifier distinguishes it from the IPv6 local-in policy tools, and 'existing' distinguishes it from the create sibling.

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?

It implies use for updating an existing policy and includes a disable example, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives such as get_local_in_policy or update_local_in_policy6.

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