retention_add_automation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It communicates that this is a mutating operation—adding automated cleanup—but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, scheduling implications, or whether existing cleanup automation will be overwritten. This is minimal behavioral exposure at best.

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 concise and front-loaded, with no filler words. However, it is under-specified to the point of providing only the bare action, and the lack of supporting detail limits the usefulness of the conciseness.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented api_key parameter, the description is not complete enough for confident invocation. It tells the agent what to do at a high level but omits necessary context about how the automation behaves and what the api_key is for.

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%: 'directory' has a description but 'api_key' does not. The tool description adds nothing about either parameter, so the agent is left without guidance on what api_key is used for or how it relates to the cleanup operation. The description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 clear action ('Add') and a target ('automated data cleanup'), and the tool name anchors it to retention. However, it does not differentiate this from closely related sibling tools like retention_generate_policy or retention_generate_report, so it is clear but not fully distinguishing.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, what prerequisites must exist, or whether it should be run before or after policy generation. The agent must infer the intended workflow entirely from the name and sibling list.

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