set_warranty

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

The idempotentHint annotation is complemented by the description's note that only passed arguments change and other fields are preserved, which is an important partial-update behavior. It also clarifies the date format for expires. No contradiction with the annotation.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main action. Parameter details are presented in clear, separate lines with no redundant words. Every sentence 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?

For a simple update tool, the description covers all necessary context: target item identifier, field meanings, and partial-update behavior. No output schema exists, but return value is not critical for a setter. The level of detail is sufficient.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains all four parameters: identifier forms, expires format (YYYY-MM-DD), lifetime as a boolean flag, and details as a summary string. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of 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 opens with 'Set warranty info on an existing item', a specific verb+resource. It also clarifies the identifier formats (assetId / alias field / exact name), which distinguishes it from generic setters like set_fields.

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 clearly implies use when warranty fields need updating, with specific field semantics. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like set_fields or state when not to use, but the context is unmistakable.

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