add_security_predicate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the SQL command executed but does not disclose side effects, permissions required, error conditions (e.g., policy must exist, function must exist), or behavior if predicate already exists.

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 well-structured with a one-line summary, a brief explanation, and an Args list. It is front-loaded and concise, with no extraneous information.

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?

The description thoroughly covers the 8 parameters (7 required) but lacks behavioral context such as prerequisites (e.g., policy must exist) and output details. Since there is an output schema, the absence of return value explanation is acceptable, but more behavioral completeness would improve the score.

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 Args section explains each parameter clearly, including that 'fn_schema' is optional and 'policy_name' should be qualified. It adds meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. The description clarifies that 'fn_args' are column names passed to the function.

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 adds a FILTER predicate to an existing row-level security policy, using the specific SQL command. It distinguishes from related tools like 'drop_security_predicate' and 'create_security_policy'.

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 mentions that there is no predicate-type or operation parameter because Fabric Data Warehouse only supports FILTER predicates, which is a useful caveat. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or what prerequisites exist.

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