set_incremental_refresh

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses a key side effect (creating RangeStart/RangeEnd parameters if absent) and that it binds the M partition to them. However, it does not mention whether an existing incremental-refresh policy is overwritten, permissions required, or reversibility, leaving gaps for a mutating 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 concise—three sentences—with the main purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value: purpose, side-effect/prerequisite, and allowed granularity values. No 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 (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the primary purpose, the key side effect of creating M parameters, and the granularity options. It lacks edge-case details like prerequisites for table types or behavior with existing policies, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 71% (5 of 7 parameters have descriptions), but the description adds semantic meaning beyond the schema by explaining the overall mechanism—how rollingWindowPeriods and incrementalPeriods relate to the 'rolling window' and 'most recent increment' concepts. It also clarifies granularity values, though these are already in the schema descriptions.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Attach a basic incremental-refresh policy to a table'. It further explains the rolling-window behavior and granularity options, distinguishing it from sibling tools like refresh_table or set_refresh_schedule.

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 gives contextual guidance by mentioning the prerequisite RangeStart/RangeEnd M parameters and that they are created if absent, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The usage context is implied rather than directly differentiated from other refresh-related tools.

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