Set Data Safety

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses irreversibility, the lack of a read-back API, the two-step preview/confirm behavior, read-only mode disabling, and the fact that approval is bound to file contents re-read at confirmation rather than to the path. This is exemplary behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is dense but well-structured, with the core purpose first and workflow-critical warnings following. Every sentence adds relevant operational context—mutual exclusivity, irreversibility, file re-reading, read-only behavior, and the two-step flow—without redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's complexity—a destructive, two-step write with confirmation tokens and multiple mutually exclusive input paths—the description covers the full calling contract: what to export first, how to choose an input path, how confirmation works, and why the token must come from the preview. An output schema exists, so return values do not need explanation 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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema by declaring that csv_path and safety_labels are mutually exclusive, csv_path is preferred, and the confirm leg re-reads the file so approval binds to answers rather than the path. This clarifies how the parameters interact in a way the schema alone does not.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Write the data safety labels declaration of an app." It clearly identifies the operation, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like preflight_data_safety_csv or update_listing beyond the word 'write.'

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 provides strong contextual usage guidance: supply either csv_path or safety_labels, export a CSV from Play Console first, and follow the two-step preview-then-confirm flow. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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