set_security_policy_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool is not destructive and reversible, which is good. However, it does not disclose required permissions, error states (e.g., policy not found), or whether the policy must exist before calling. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.

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: four lines cover purpose, SQL equivalent, key behavioral trait, and parameter list. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy. It is well-structured for quick scanning.

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 no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description reasonably explains core behavior and parameters. However, it omits prerequisites (policy must exist), return value information (though an output schema exists), and usage context relative to siblings. Slightly incomplete for a 4-parameter tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain each parameter. It does so for all four: workspace, item, policy_name (with formatting hint), and enabled (True=enable, False=disable). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema.

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 action: 'Enable or disable a row-level security policy.' This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like drop_security_policy (deletion) or create_security_policy (creation).

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 the operation is reversible ('Not destructive'), which helps the understand the risk profile, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., drop_security_policy vs toggling state). The agent must infer context from sibling names.

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