set_data_access_options

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that fastCombine ignores privacy levels in this file (in-file equivalent of disabling Privacy), that omitted parameters are unchanged, and that compatibility level 1400+ is required. It does not elaborate on return values or side effects beyond these, but the key behavioral traits are transparent.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, lists the options compactly, and closes with a necessary compatibility caveat. Every sentence contributes useful information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 setter with four parameters and no output schema, the description gives the essential purpose, parameter semantics, and an important prerequisite. It does not explain sessionId, but that is a common contextual element. It lacks details on return behavior or errors, but these are not expected for a mutation tool. Overall, it is nearly complete.

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 75% (three of four parameters described in schema). The description adds meaningful semantic nuance for fastCombine ('in-file equivalent of disabling Privacy'), which goes beyond the schema's simpler 'ignore privacy levels in-file' phrasing. For legacyRedirects and returnErrorValuesAsNull, the description repeats schema terms but does not add much; however, the fastCombine clarification earns a score above baseline.

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 clearly states the tool sets Model.DataAccessOptions and explicitly enumerates the three supported sub-options (fastCombine, legacyRedirects, returnErrorValuesAsNull). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on the DataAccessOptions object and providing the in-file privacy context, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explains that any subset can be set and omitted options remain unchanged, giving clear usage intent. It also provides a critical precondition (compatibility level 1400+) and clarifies the semantic difference between fastCombine and globally disabling privacy, which aids in choosing when to use this tool. It stops short of explicitly mentioning alternatives or when not to use it, but it is sufficiently clear.

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