manage_retention_policies

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, covering the core safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this - it mentions 'lifecycle rules' which hints at the policy's purpose but doesn't elaborate on side effects, permissions needed, or rate limits. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place - 'manage' (verb), 'retention policies' (resource), and the scope across four Microsoft services with 'lifecycle rules' providing just enough context.

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 complex tool with 7 parameters, nested objects, and destructive operations, the description is minimal. While annotations cover safety aspects and the schema documents parameters, the description doesn't address the multi-action nature (list/get/create/update/delete) or provide context about when different actions are appropriate. No output schema exists, so return values remain undocumented.

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 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'lifecycle rules' which aligns with retentionSettings but adds no specific syntax, format, or usage details beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'manage' and resource 'retention policies', specifying scope across Exchange, SharePoint, OneDrive, and Teams with lifecycle rules. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on retention policies specifically, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar policy management tools like manage_exchange_policies or manage_sharepoint_governance_policies.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. With many sibling tools for managing different aspects of Microsoft 365, the lack of usage guidance is a significant gap.

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