apply_retention

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is covered structurally; the description adds real value by naming the concrete consequences (archival threshold, deletion past 2× threshold). It stops short of stating irreversibility, whether deletion is permanent, or any permission requirements, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Two compact sentences with the action and its effects front-loaded. The trailing 'Example: {}' earns little for a zero-parameter tool and is arguably filler, but it is harmless and does signal that no arguments are required.

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 no-argument, no-output tool whose annotations already flag destructive behavior, the description supplies the essential policy semantics needed to call it safely. It could be marginally more complete by clarifying that the 2× threshold is relative to retention_days, but nothing critical is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The schema is an empty object and the description's 'Example: {}' reinforces that no input is needed; there is simply nothing further to document.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Apply the current retention policy') and then spells out both effects: archiving traces older than retention_days and deleting archived traces past 2× threshold. The phrase 'current retention policy' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling set_retention_policy, so an agent can tell which one mutates policy versus executes it.

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?

Usage is only implied: it applies an already-configured policy, so it presumably follows set_retention_policy. There is no explicit statement of when to call it, when not to, or what alternative exists if no policy has been set. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer ordering and prerequisites.

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