create_data_management_policy

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

Annotations already cover the mutation profile: readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true. The description adds useful context beyond that: the created policy is inactive, and policies already existing for the table are rejected. The rejection wording is somewhat ambiguous, but the added behavioral context is meaningful.

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 two short sentences and front-loads the main action. The "[Write]" tag is redundant with annotations but does not add significant noise.

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?

This is a simple mutation tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no schema descriptions. The description gives the core action and one constraint, but it omits what name/table should contain, how "inactive" affects use, and what happens on rejection, which is not enough for reliable invocation.

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%, so the description must explain the three parameters. It only indirectly references the table parameter and gives no meaning for name or description, leaving required parameters effectively undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Create an inactive Data Management Policy." It clearly distinguishes creation from sibling listing/getting tools such as list_data_management_policies and get_data_management_policy, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or conditions for creation. The note that existing policies for the table are rejected is a behavioral constraint rather than usage guidance.

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