set_plan_retention

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the most important behavioral trait: a confirm gate must be passed to actually execute. It does not say whether lowering the 'days' value deletes or expires existing recovery points, whether the change is reversible, or what permissions are needed — significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 terse sentences with the core action front-loaded and the mandatory gate second. There is no filler and nothing that could be moved earlier for clarity.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the action and the confirm requirement but omits consequences of the change, required permissions, and what the response confirms. It is minimally sufficient to invoke correctly but not 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 coverage is 67%, and the description adds useful meaning for 'days' by framing it as 'retention (days)', which the bare integer schema does not. It largely restates the confirm gate already documented in the schema ('Must be true to actually run') and says nothing new about the 'plan' identifier.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Sets the retention (days) of a backup plan.' An agent immediately knows this mutates a plan's retention setting. However, it does not differentiate from similar siblings such as set_cleaning or plan, so the scope boundary is only implicit.

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 description includes one real usage constraint — 'Requires confirm:true' — which is a precondition rather than a when-to-use rule. It offers no guidance on when to choose this over sibling settings tools or what the starting state of a plan should be.

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