Set the backup retention period

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that this mutates a live environment, that confirm: true is required to act, that without it the tool returns a dry run, and that it runs the underlying 'pac admin set-backup-retention-period' with the active auth profile. It stops short of stating required permissions or the shape/content of the result.

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?

It is short but redundant: the live-environment/confirm:true constraint is stated twice in near-identical sentences ('Changes a live environment: requires confirm: true' and 'Mutates a live environment: requires confirm: true (a dry run otherwise)'). The allowed-values fact is front-loaded well, but the duplication wastes space.

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 mutation command with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: what changes, that it is destructive/live, and the confirm gate. It could mention permissions or the result format, but it is close to complete for this operation.

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%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description adds value by restating the valid 'days' values and the confirm gating semantics, but adds no syntax that is not already in the schema.

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 ('Set how many days backups of an environment are kept') and even enumerates the allowed values 7/14/21/28. The purpose is unambiguous and clearly distinct from adjacent siblings like cs_admin_backup_environment or cs_admin_list_backups, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

It reveals a hard prerequisite (confirm: true) but gives no when-to-use guidance, no conditions for choosing this over alternatives, and no mention of related operations like restore or backup. The agent must infer the appropriate usage context entirely.

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