veya_set_tool_policy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the authorization requirement (owning API key) and persistence semantics ('saved on that account'), which is meaningful context for a write. However it omits whether the call overwrites an existing policy, whether it is idempotent, and what a failure looks like.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the prerequisite, then the persistence effect. Nothing is wasted and no sentence is filler.

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 5-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics but leaves the agent guessing about return values, overwrite behavior, and error conditions. Adequate but with visible gaps.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it does conceptually map every parameter: tool ('a tool'), allowed ('allow or deny'), agentId ('for an agent'), environmentId ('the environment'), and apiKey ('the API key'). It still doesn't clarify the accepted tool identifier format or where the agentId/environmentId come from.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: allow or deny a tool for an agent. An agent can immediately tell this mutates an access policy rather than executing, routing, or reading anything, and no sibling tool covers the same ground.

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 one real prerequisite (the API key must own the environment), which is genuine usage guidance, but says nothing about when to reach for this vs. other configuration tools or what state must exist first (environment/agent registration).

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