Set birth history settings

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

Annotations already cover safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds real context beyond them: this is a whole-object replace rather than a patch, and an empty birth_windows array has the specific meaning 'no planned windows' rather than 'leave unchanged' — an important distinction given the schema's default of [].

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation, followed by the one non-obvious semantic rule. Nothing is wasted and the highest-value warning (do not invent defaults) is placed prominently.

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 nested-object replace tool with no output schema, the description covers the key ambiguity around empty birth_windows but omits other gaps: whether omitted nested fields (gestation_days, minimum_sire_age_days) are cleared, and what the tool returns after a successful set. Adequate but leaves an agent guessing about patch-vs-full-replace consequences.

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 50% schema description coverage, the schema documents farm_id but leaves species, version, gestation_days, minimum_sire_age_days and the birth_windows item fields bare. The description only clarifies birth_windows semantics (empty = no planned windows), adding meaning the schema's default:[] does not convey, but it compensates little for the uncovered parameters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Replace ... birth-history settings', with the full-overwrite semantics made explicit. It does not, however, name or differentiate from its obvious sibling get_birth_history_settings, so an agent must infer the read/write split from names alone.

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?

'Never invent biological interval defaults' is a genuine usage directive telling the agent not to fabricate values, which is stronger than nothing. But there is no when-to-use framing, no prerequisites, and no pointer to get_birth_history_settings for reading current values before replacing them.

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