update_execution_policy

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

Beyond annotations, the description documents observable side effects: changes take effect immediately, are recorded in the audit log, and write a new policy snapshot. It also discloses the partial-update behavior and return value (full updated policy), providing the behavioral context an agent needs.

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?

Each sentence earns its place: partial-update semantics first, then parameter effects, then side effects and related tools, then return value. There is no filler or repetition despite the dense content.

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 tool with no output schema, the description compensates by stating the return value, side effects, preconditions, and parameter semantics. An agent has enough information to call update_execution_policy correctly without inspecting further docs.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by contextualizing them ('blocks decisions below that confidence,' 'idempotency gate,' 'wait for enough recorded outcomes') and by explaining that only supplied fields change.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Partially update the organization's autonomous execution policy.' It clarifies scope ('only the fields supplied change') and names related sibling tools (get_execution_policy, list_execution_policy_snapshots), so an agent can distinguish it from the read and snapshot tools.

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?

It gives a clear precondition ('Read the current values first with get_execution_policy') and points to list_execution_policy_snapshots for the resulting snapshot. It does not spell out explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is sufficiently clear for a partial-update tool.

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