MCP Server for OpenMetadata

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to do so. It states the tool updates a policy, implying a mutation, but does not cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to understand the tool's behavior.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Update an existing policy', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. While it is under-specified, it is not verbose or poorly structured.

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?

Given the complexity of updating a policy (a mutation with nested objects), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks essential details on behavior, parameters, usage, and expected outcomes, making it inadequate for effective tool 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 description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters 'policy_id' and 'policy_data' are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters—it does not explain what 'policy_id' refers to, the structure or content of 'policy_data', or any constraints. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 'Update an existing policy' restates the tool name 'update_policy' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'update' and resource 'policy' but lacks detail on what aspects of a policy are updated or how this differs from other policy-related tools like 'create_policy' or 'validate_policy'.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., an existing policy ID), comparison to 'create_policy' for new policies, or when to choose 'validate_policy' instead. The description offers no contextual usage information.

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