Create a tool policy

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false) operation. The description adds the authorization class, which is a behavioral detail beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose side effects, success outcomes, or error scenarios.

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 very short (two lines) and front-loads the purpose. It lacks detail but is concise. It could earn its place better by including parameter hints or usage notes.

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 (multiple nested parameters, conditions, policy types) and the presence of an output schema, the description should explain what a tool policy is, what each major field does, or provide an example. It does none of this, leaving the agent with insufficient context.

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%, and the description provides no information about the parameters (path or body). The schema is complex with many nested fields, and the description adds no meaning to help an agent fill them correctly.

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 action ('Create') and resource ('tool policy'), and the title reinforces it. The sibling list includes a GET for policies, so the create counterpart is distinguishable. However, it does not explicitly describe the scope (e.g., per company) beyond the endpoint path.

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 'Authorization class: board' which gives some access context, but it does not guide when to create a policy vs. reorder, patch, delete, or other sibling tools. No prerequisites, conditions, or alternatives are provided.

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