set_birth_history_settings

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

Annotations say idempotentHint=true, and the description's 'Replace' implies a full overwrite, which is consistent. The description adds a critical behavioral rule: never invent biological interval defaults; empty array means no planned windows. This goes beyond annotations to warn about a common mistake, making it strong.

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?

One-to-two sentences, front-loads the core action, and delivers a precise caveat. No fluff or repetition of schema details. Every word earns its place.

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 moderately complex with nested objects, but the schema covers most parameter details. The description explains the critical edge case (empty array), and annotations cover idempotency and safety. It doesn't mention error conditions or response behavior, but given no output schema, that is minor.

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 only 50%, and most parameters like farm_id, species, version, gestation_days, minimum_sire_age_days are self-explanatory from the schema, but the description clarifies the crucial birth_windows parameter's behavior (empty = no planned windows). This compensates for the coverage gap, especially for the nested structure.

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 it replaces explicit producer-approved birth-history settings. The verb 'Replace' and resource 'birth-history settings' are specific, but it does not distinguish from its sibling get_birth_history_settings beyond implying a setter. The description also clarifies the semantics of an empty array, which adds specificity.

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?

Implies usage by indicating it should only be used with explicit producer-approved settings, and warns against inventing defaults. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_birth_history_settings, so guidance is present but incomplete.

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