Import a reviewed scenario tenant policy to enforce rules, set evidence TTL, and configure high-assurance override approvals.
Import a reviewed version-1 Scenario tenant policy document. This controls enforcement, evidence TTL, and high-assurance override approval.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the document controls, not what importing does (e.g., overwrite, validate, require existing policy) or any side effects. It also misleads by claiming 'version-1' while the schema permits version 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?
Two sentences with the main action and resource front-loaded. The description is efficient, though the inaccurate 'version-1' qualifier slightly harms precision.
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?
The tool has a complex union input schema, no output schema, and no annotations. This brief description omits validation behavior, merge/overwrite semantics, return values, and version reconciliation, making it inadequate for confident 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?
The description adds meaning by linking the document to enforcement, evidence TTL, and high-assurance approval, which maps roughly to mode, evidence_ttl_days, and require_second_approver. However, with 0% schema description coverage, it does not explain the version 1 vs 2 structural differences or the additional release governance fields.
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?
Clearly identifies the action (import) and resource (a Scenario tenant policy document), and states what the document controls. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling yaaif_agent_spec_policy_set, and the 'version-1' qualifier conflicts with the schema that also accepts version 2.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as yaaif_agent_spec_policy_set or yaaif_agent_spec_policy_export. No prerequisites, exclusions, or decision criteria are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.