yaaif_agent_spec_policy_set

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation (promote) but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, impact on other tenants, or any authorization requirements. The phrase 'from observe to warn or require' is misleading because the tool can also set to 'observe', contradicting the described promotion direction.

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 a single concise sentence with no fluff, which is good for structure. However, it is under-specified, providing minimal information that could have been expanded without verbosity. It is not tautological but sacrifices clarity for brevity.

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 simple schema, but with no output schema, no annotations, and a very short description, critical context is missing. The agent does not learn what 'adoption inventory review' is, what the policy modes mean, or what the consequences of promotion are. The description is insufficient for a safe and correct 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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the 'mode' parameter at all. While the enum values are listed in the schema, the description only hints at 'warn' and 'require' and gives no explanation of what each mode means or how to choose one. The agent receives no semantic guidance beyond the enum names.

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 ('promote') and resource ('active tenant') and implies a policy state change. It distinguishes from get/import/export siblings by the 'promote' action. However, it says 'from observe to warn or require' while the schema allows setting to 'observe' as well, creating a slight inaccuracy about the full scope.

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?

Only a vague timing context is given ('after adoption inventory review'), with no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives like yaaif_agent_spec_policy_get or import/export. No exclusions or conditions are provided, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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