tenki_update_snapshot_retention_settings

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent write, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds valuable behavioral context: the meaning of the 'unset state', that retention_days and clear_retention are mutually exclusive, and that the tool is deprecated upstream. This goes beyond the structured annotation fields.

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?

Three dense sentences with no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, the parameter relationship is immediately actionable, and the deprecation guidance is tucked at the end without disrupting the core instructions.

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 settings-update tool, the description covers the essential behavioral contract: what the tool does, how to choose between the two parameters, what the unset state means, and where to go instead due to deprecation. No output schema is provided, but return-value details are not necessary for correct invocation here.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. However, the description adds the critical relationship between the two mutually exclusive parameters: exactly one must be passed, and clear_retention represents the unset/indefinite state. This is semantic value beyond the raw property descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('workspace's snapshot-retention policy') and explains the policy's purpose: how long snapshots are kept before automatic cleanup. It clearly differentiates itself from the preferred sibling (tenki_update_workspace_settings) by naming it directly in the deprecation note.

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 explicitly says the tool is deprecated and to prefer tenki_update_workspace_settings instead, which is a clear alternative. It also gives precise usage conditions: pass retention_days to set a period, or clear_retention to keep snapshots indefinitely, and exactly one of the two must be provided.

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