processDefinition_setHistoryTtlById

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It adds context that this 'Controls how long historic instances are retained,' explaining the effect. However, it omits critical behavioral details: whether reducing TTL triggers immediate deletion, if changes apply retroactively, or reversibility concerns.

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 efficient sentences with no waste. First sentence captures action, resource, and identifier. Second explains business purpose. Information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 configuration mutation with data retention implications, no output schema, and zero annotations, the description lacks behavioral warnings about data deletion risks. However, it adequately covers the functional purpose within its concise scope.

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?

Input schema has 0 properties (empty object), setting baseline to 4 per rules. The description adds 'in days' (unit semantics) and 'by ID' (identifier type), providing valuable semantic context that compensates for the empty schema regarding what parameters would be expected.

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 specific verb 'Update' with resource 'history time-to-live' and scope 'process definition version by ID'. The 'by ID' clearly distinguishes from sibling tool processDefinition_setHistoryTtlByKey, specifying the identifier type required.

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 mention of 'by ID' implies usage when an ID is available (vs Key for the sibling), but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or warnings about choosing between ID and Key variants. No alternatives or exclusions are stated.

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