set_audit_retention

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

With no annotations, description must disclose behavior. It mentions that the tool does not change the enabled state, requires audit enabled, and that the API enforces its own upper bound on days. However, it does not describe whether the change is immediate, if it affects existing logs, or the return value (though output schema exists). Still, the description is fairly transparent.

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?

Three sentences plus an Args list. The first sentence states the core action, the second gives a prerequisite, and the third explains parameters. No wasted words, well-structured, and front-loaded.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown), so return values need not be explained. The description covers purpose, prerequisites, and all parameters. It might miss behavioral details like effects on existing logs, but for a simple retention update, it is sufficiently complete with the given context.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It specifies workspace and warehouse as 'name or GUID', adding meaning beyond the schema's string type. For days, it gives the range and notes API-enforced upper bound, complementing the schema's min/max.

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 'Update' and the resource 'audit log retention period', and distinguishes it by noting it does not change the enabled/disabled state. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like enable_audit and disable_audit.

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?

Explicitly states prerequisites: audit must already be enabled. Provides an alternative: if disabled, use enable_audit first. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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