zda_update_sla_policy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'affects live ticket flow' (implicit destructive hint) and explains the preview-then-apply pattern. It does not mention permissions or rollback, but the guarded warning and usage instructions are sufficient for safe invocation.

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 and packs essential information into a single paragraph without waste. Every sentence adds value: action, guarded warning, usage flow, and common fields. It is efficiently structured with front-loaded key points.

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 output schema, the description does not explain return values. However, it covers the tool's behavior (preview/apply), parameter details, and guidance. For an update tool with a preview mechanism, the information is sufficient for correct invocation, though output format could be mentioned.

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 67% with some parameters documented. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by listing common fields for the 'data' parameter (title, description, filter, policy_metrics) and clarifying that the field values should not be wrapped in an envelope. This helps the agent construct correct inputs.

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 ('Update') and resource ('existing Zendesk sla_policy'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the resource type and the guarded nature. The title and description together make the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance: 'Call without require_confirm to preview the current state; re-call with require_confirm: true to apply.' This tells the agent when to use the tool and how to safely apply changes, which is critical for a guarded object.

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