redis_expire

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention what happens if the key does not exist (error or silently ignored), if seconds is negative (removes expiration in Redis), or what the return value is. The minimal description fails to disclose important behavioral traits.

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 a single, efficient sentence. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words. Every part earns its place.

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 simplicity, the description is functional but lacks edge-case behavioral details. With an output schema present, return values are covered, but the description could be more complete by noting behavior for non-existent keys or negative seconds.

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 100%, with clear parameter descriptions for 'key' and 'seconds'. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Set expiration time on a key.' clearly states the specific verb 'set' and resource 'expiration time on a key'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like redis_ttl (which gets the TTL) and redis_persist (not listed but implied). The purpose is unambiguous and concise.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as redis_ttl for checking expiration or redis_expireat for absolute timestamps. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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