Checkpoint Set Ttl

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the mutation and repeat-safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond the schema: null means indefinite retention. It still omits whether existing retention is overwritten, whether the change is reversible, and any 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?

A single short sentence with the core action front-loaded and the null semantics appended as a qualifier. No filler, though the extreme brevity borders on under-specification for a two-parameter mutation tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety. However, with two required parameters at 0% schema coverage and no usage context, an agent must guess at the meaning of tinker_path and the practical effect of the call.

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, and it only clarifies ttl_seconds' null case. tinker_path is completely unexplained, and the unit/format expectation for ttl_seconds (seconds, per the name only) is never stated in prose.

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 checkpoint retention.' An agent can tell this mutates a retention policy rather than reading or deleting a checkpoint. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as checkpoint_delete or checkpoint_publish, which also mutate checkpoint state.

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 on when to call this versus alternatives, what preconditions exist (does the checkpoint need to be published? must the caller own it?), or what effect retention has on later operations. The only conditional given is about a parameter value, not about usage context.

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