expire_window

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the verb: it does not say whether expiry is reversible, what happens to the window's messages or state, whether permissions are required, or what triggers it. The Returns section only restates structure already available in the output schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then a compact parameter list that is genuinely useful given the 0% schema coverage. The 'Returns' block duplicates the existing output schema and is minor waste, but overall it is tight and well 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?

The existence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, and the description redundantly does so anyway. For a mutation tool with no annotations it still leaves key gaps: the undocumented 'format' parameter and the absence of any behavioral or usage 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates for two of three parameters ('Project identifier', 'the UUID of the window identity to expire'), adding real meaning the schema lacks. It omits the 'format' parameter entirely, leaving that third parameter undocumented anywhere.

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 ('Mark ... as expired') and resource ('window identity'), which is clear enough to distinguish from the sibling rename_window and list_window_identities. However, it does no explicit sibling differentiation and never clarifies what 'expired' means to the identity.

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 description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to any alternative tool or flow. Usage must be entirely inferred from the tool name and the sibling list.

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