set_periods

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that periods are saved, that an empty end means today, that tz_offsets overrides automatic travel detection, and that [] restores the 90-day default. It leaves out overwrite semantics, return behavior, and error conditions, so it is not fully complete.

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 front-loaded with the action, followed by a concrete example and then the key default/reset behaviors. Every sentence adds useful information, and there is no filler.

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 one-parameter configuration tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the essential examples, defaults, and reset behavior. Minor gaps remain around whether saved periods overwrite prior periods and whether tz_offsets belongs inside each period object, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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% and the schema only shows a generic periods array, so the description must compensate. It does so by showing the expected object fields (name, start, end), explaining the empty-end default, and documenting optional tz_offsets and the reset value. It still does not formally state which fields are required within each period object.

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: save periods used for comparison. The example makes the intended data shape clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this configuration tool from the sibling compare_periods tool, leaving the relationship to be inferred.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Save the periods to compare' and by the reset behavior 'Pass [] to go back to the 90-day default.' There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus compare_periods or the dashboard/reporting siblings, and no when-not guidance.

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