Set Micro record retention

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

Annotations already flag the tool as destructive and non-read-only. The description adds meaningful context by clarifying that automatic pruning is opt-in and that purchases and entitlements are never affected, which tempers the destructiveness and defines scope. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence delivers critical caveats about pruning and unaffected data.

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?

The description covers the main behavior and important exclusions, but the missing keep-forever encoding and the range mismatch with the schema prevent an agent from confidently constructing valid parameters. The presence of an output schema covers return-value expectations.

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?

The description gives some meaning to recordDays ('keep-forever or a 30–3650 day policy') and automatic ('opt-in'), which are not described in the schema. However, it does not specify how to encode keep-forever, and the 30–3650 range conflicts with the schema's effectively unbounded min/max, leaving ambiguity.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('Micro record retention policy') and clearly states the two policy types: keep-forever or 30-3650 day. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like micro_retention (viewing) and micro_retention_prune (pruning), but does not explicitly name 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus micro_retention or micro_retention_prune, and no mention of inspecting before setting. The note that automatic pruning is opt-in is a usage nuance, but selection criteria and exclusions are missing.

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