tenants_providers_policies_createCreate a policy for a tenant provider that defines its audience and optional conditions, enabling controlled access rules within UseGrant.
Create Tenant Provider Policy
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| audience | Yes | ||
| tenantId | Yes | Tenant ID | |
| conditions | No | ||
| description | Yes | ||
| tenantProviderId | Yes | Tenant Provider ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, so the safety bar is lower, but the description adds nothing beyond them: no note on prerequisites, uniqueness of name/audience, or what happens on repeat calls. Given zero added context for a write tool, it lands at 2.
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?
There is nothing to trim because there is nothing there; the single sentence is a title echo, so brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency.
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?
A 6-parameter mutation with a nested conditions array, five required fields, and no output schema demands far more than a repeated title. An agent cannot correctly call this tool without opening and reasoning through the raw schema.
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 only 33%, yet the description explains none of the 6 parameters. The nested 'conditions' array with key/operator/value and the required audience/description constraints are the most consequential inputs and are entirely undocumented in prose.
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?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus siblings like tenants_providers_create or tenants_providers_policies_list. The agent must infer the entire create-a-policy-under-a-provider workflow from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.