snapshot_retention_plan

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does so strongly: 'never deletes anything' is an explicit non-destructive guarantee, and 'would keep or delete' clarifies the simulation-only nature. It does not discuss preconditions or output details, but these are partially covered by schema parameters.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the verb, states the policy rule, and ends with the crucial safety qualifier. No filler; every phrase adds meaning.

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 non-destructive planning tool with no output schema, this description is complete: it states the action, the policy logic, and the safety boundary. Optional parameters like playlist restriction and response_format are documented in the schema, so the agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

All four parameters already have full descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), and the description simply restates the policy in prose (keep-last-N, age cutoff) without adding new parameter-level detail. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the semantic load.

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 ('Report'), the resource ('which snapshots a keep-last-N (+ optional age cutoff) retention policy would keep or delete'), and an emphatic safety qualifier ('never deletes anything'). This clearly distinguishes it from destructive snapshot tools like prune_old_snapshots or restore_playlist_from_snapshot.

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 clearly frames this as a planning/reporting tool, and the 'never deletes anything' clause draws a bright line against destructive use. It provides clear context and an exclusion, though it does not name a specific alternative tool for actually executing deletions.

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