update_expiration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'update' without explaining side effects, permissions, reversibility, or what 'archived' actually means (e.g., hiding the expiration from lists). Minimal transparency.

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, short sentence that directly states the action. Every word is meaningful, no redundancy, and it is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 simple 2-parameter update with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core action but lacks behavioral details and usage guidance. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps in transparency and context.

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%, so the description must compensate. It identifies 'archived status' as the focus, clarifying the 'archived' parameter, but does not explain the 'id' parameter or the meaning of true/false values. Adds some value but not comprehensive.

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 clearly states the tool updates an expiration's archived status, which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_expirations and delete_expiration by specifying the exact field being modified.

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?

The usage is implied: one would use this tool to archive or unarchive an expiration. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like delete_expiration, nor any context about when archiving is appropriate.

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