redis_expire

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

The description discloses the readOnly mode blocking behavior, which is a notable trait. However, it omits details about return values, error cases (e.g., key does not exist), and side effects on existing TTL. Given no annotations, the description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action, the second adds an important behavioral constraint. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool is simple, but the description does not mention return values, error handling, or that the key must exist. It separates from siblings adequately but lacks depth for a mutation tool without annotations. Adequate but with gaps.

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?

The input schema covers 2 of 3 parameters with descriptions (seconds and connectionId). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain the key parameter or provide context for connectionId. With 67% schema coverage, the description does not compensate.

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 action: 'Set a key's time to live in seconds.' It is specific and uses a verb+resource format. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like redis_set or redis_ttl, though the purpose is distinct enough.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., key must exist) or scenarios where the tool should not be used. The second sentence about readOnly mode is a behavioral constraint, not usage guidance.

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