configure_time_decay

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention any side effects, prerequisites, or consequences (e.g., whether changes persist, affect all tasks, or require specific permissions). The agent cannot assess safety or impact.

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?

While extremely short, the description is under-specified given the complexity of configuration tools. It sacrifices meaningful content for brevity, failing to earn its place with essential details.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and two undocumented parameters, the description is critically incomplete. The agent cannot determine what time decay means, its effect, or how to configure it properly.

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 should explain the parameters. It does not clarify that 'enabled' activates decay and 'halfLifeDays' sets the decay rate. The agent must guess their semantics.

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 'Configure time decay' essentially restates the tool name without additional context. It vaguely indicates configuration of a decay function but does not specify what time decay applies to or how it differs from siblings like configure_effort_weighting.

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 vs alternatives (e.g., configure_effort_weighting, bump_task_priority). The agent must infer its purpose from the name alone, which is insufficient for correct selection.

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