set_audit_action_groups

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it only replaces action groups, does not affect audit state, and includes a detailed caution about eventual consistency and potential silent revert of retention period. This is excellent transparency.

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 well-structured with a main sentence, a clarifying note, a caution, and parameter list. It is front-loaded with the purpose. Minor room for improvement, but highly effective.

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 tool's behavior, side effects, and parameter meaning. An output schema exists, so return values are not required. It lacks error condition details, but overall it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description adds value by specifying that workspace and warehouse are names or GUIDs, and that action_groups is a list of names. While not extensive, it clarifies the format beyond the schema titles.

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 verb 'Replace' and the resource 'audited action groups for a warehouse or SQL analytics endpoint'. This distinguishes it from siblings like add_audit_group (adds a single group) and remove_audit_group (removes a group).

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 explicitly states that it only replaces action groups and does not toggle the audit enabled/disabled state, which helps in deciding when to use it. However, it does not mention alternatives directly, so it's not a 5.

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