set_data_safety

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavior. It states it 'writes' (implies mutation) but does not explain side effects, whether it overwrites or merges existing labels, or any prerequisite permissions. The read-only note adds a constraint but is not a behavioral trait. Given the sparsity, it fails to inform the agent about potential impacts or error conditions.

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 only two sentences, both highly relevant. The first states the core action, and the second adds a critical usage constraint. Zero waste, front-loaded, and easily parsed.

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?

Given this is a write operation with no annotations, it lacks essential context such as whether the operation is destructive, if there are any prerequisites (e.g., app must exist), or what the response indicates. An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the description provides insufficient behavioral and operational completeness for an agent to invoke safely.

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%, and the schema property for 'safety_labels' already explains it contains a `safetyLabels` string with CSV contents. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so it stays at the baseline of 3 where the schema is sufficient.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Write the data safety labels declaration of an app.' It uses a specific verb ('write') and resource ('data safety labels declaration'), and it is distinct from all sibling tools, none of which address data safety labels.

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 tool's purpose provides clear context for when to use it (anytime you need to declare an app's data safety labels). The added 'Disabled in read-only mode' flags a usage constraint, though it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions. Since no alternative tool exists, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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