apply_retention_policy

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention any side effects (e.g., data deletion, archiving), permission requirements, or reversibility. This is a severe gap for a tool that likely modifies or removes data.

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 sentence, achieving conciseness, but it is too brief to be adequately informative. While it states the core purpose, it sacrifices necessary detail; it is not earn every sentence because it omits critical information.

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 (6 parameters, no annotations, no schema descriptions, and an output schema), the description is grossly insufficient. It provides no context about return values, behavior, or operational semantics, leaving the agent completely uninformed.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining key parameters, but it does not mention any (e.g., project_id, owner_id, retention counts). The agent has no context on how parameters influence behavior, making correct invocation unlikely.

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 'Aplica politicas de retencion y archivo' clearly states the tool's action (applies policies) and resource (retention and archiving), making its purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish from siblings, though no direct siblings exist for this specific function.

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. The description lacks context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when not to use it, which is critical given the potentially destructive nature of applying retention policies.

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