Replace the company skill policy

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds the authorization class 'board_or_agent', which is useful. However, it does not disclose behavioral details like atomicity, whether the old policy is overwritten, or error scenarios. The annotations carry most of the burden, and the description adds marginal value.

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 sentences), which is concise, but it lacks substance. It front-loads the purpose but fails to include essential parameter or usage information. Conciseness is valued, but here it sacrifices completeness.

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 (nested objects, required fields, expectedRevision for concurrency), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the full replacement behavior, the need to include all rules each call, or what the response looks like (output schema exists but is not mentioned). The annotations and schema alone are insufficient for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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%, meaning the description must compensate. The description provides no information about the input parameters (path, body). The complex nested schema with fields like rules, schemaVersion, defaultEffect, expectedRevision is completely undocumented in the description. This is a critical gap.

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 'Replace the company skill policy' clearly states the action (replace) and the resource (company skill policy). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get and delete by using 'Replace' and specifying the HTTP PUT method in the second sentence.

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 (e.g., patch, delete). It does not explain prerequisites, such as needing to first retrieve the current policy for expectedRevision, or that this is a full replacement. No explicit usage context is given.

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