set_field_fiscal_year_start

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at side effects by mentioning 'and dependencies', which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, what happens to dependent calculations, or the month range accepted. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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 compact sentence with the operation front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the trailing 'and dependencies' clause is vague enough that it reads as an afterthought rather than an explanation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with no annotations and no parameter documentation, the description is only minimally complete: it identifies the target and the effect but leaves the type precondition, valid month values, and dependency consequences unexplained.

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 description coverage is 0% for both parameters, so the description must compensate. It does partially: 'date field' implies the type constraint for 'field' and 'starting month' explains 'month'. But it omits format details such as the 1–12 range or whether the field is passed by name or identifier.

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 ('Set') and a specific resource ('the native fiscal year starting month on a date field'), so an agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-neighbours like set_date_options or set_field_format, leaving sibling selection to inference.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_date_options, no prerequisites (e.g. the field must already be a date type), and no exclusions. The agent gets no routing guidance at all.

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