Change when a package expires

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description goes further by disclosing the irreversible consequence ('the package and all of its files are deleted and can not be restored') and the cost implication of added storage, which annotations cannot convey. It does not discuss auth/permission requirements.

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?

Four short sentences, purpose front-loaded, with the destructive warning kept brief. Slightly loose as a block of statements rather than a structured list, but nothing is wasted.

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 destructive, idempotent mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the key consequence and cost context an agent needs. Missing only permission/authorization notes and any guidance on restoring or reversing behavior short of the hard warning.

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%, including the interdependency between expiry and unlimited_storage, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description adds no format, boundary, or interaction detail beyond what the properties already state; baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource (update package expiration date and time) and adds a second capability (enabling/disabling unlimited storage). An agent can tell this apart from delete_package or get_package. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with any sibling, so it sits at a clear-but-not-routing 4.

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: the tool is for changing expiry or toggling unlimited storage, and the destructive consequence hints that it is the path to eventual deletion. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative (e.g. delete_package for immediate removal) named.

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