Test tool policy decision

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

The description says 'Test tool policy decision', implying a non-destructive evaluation, but annotations set readOnlyHint=false (contradiction). The description does not clarify whether the test creates side effects (e.g., audit logs) or is purely a simulation. This contradicts annotations.

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 extremely short (two lines), but it is under-specified rather than concise. It sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, failing to add value beyond the title.

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 complex input schema (2 required top-level parameters with deep nesting) and no parameter documentation, the description is completely inadequate. Even with an output schema, the input guidance is missing.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of the 'body' parameter's complex nested fields (actor, request, runContext, etc.). The agent must rely solely on the schema, which lacks descriptions.

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 title and description clearly state 'Test tool policy decision' and provide the HTTP method and path, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like creating or reordering policies. However, it lacks specificity about what 'test' means (e.g., dry-run vs. actual 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pc_post_companies_by_company_id_tools_policies or pc_post_companies_by_company_id_tools_policies_reorder. It does not mention scenarios or prerequisites.

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