create_compliance_policy

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the platform silently defaults kb_knowledge_base, approval_method and article_template rather than failing, and names the actual default values. It also surfaces the WRITE_ENABLED=true gate, which is exactly the kind of operational constraint an agent needs before attempting a write.

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?

Two sentences plus a bracketed write-gate tag; the core action comes first, then the highest-risk gotcha (silent defaults), then the security constraint. Nothing is redundant with the schema and no sentence could be dropped without losing information.

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?

For a 9-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the write gate and the tricky defaulting behaviour, which are the main failure modes. It does not state what a successful create returns (e.g. the new sys_id), which would be useful for chaining into update_compliance_policy.

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?

With 56% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining the defaulting semantics of the three most error-prone optional parameters and their concrete default values. It leaves owner, owning_group, category, policy_category and description entirely to the schema, so coverage is good but not complete.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource and anchors it to the underlying table (sn_compliance_policy), so an agent can distinguish it from list_compliance_policies, get_compliance_policy and update_compliance_policy by verb alone. It stops short of routing the agent away from near-neighbours like create_compliance_control, but the purpose is 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?

Gives a conditional rule for the three dictionary-mandatory fields (omit safely vs. pass explicitly when a specific KB/approval method/template is needed) and flags the WRITE_ENABLED prerequisite. It offers no guidance on when to create versus update an existing policy, nor any prerequisite/ordering advice relative to create_compliance_control.

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