set_time_travel_retention

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the executed SQL, the fact that it returns effective settings read back, and the failure behavior for unsupported endpoints. It does not discuss permission requirements or broader side effects, but it provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the name and schema.

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 core action, then adds precision with the SQL form, a key platform limitation, and a compact Args list. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or redundant 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?

Given three required parameters, no annotations, and an output schema that likely describes the return shape, the description is complete enough to invoke the tool correctly. It covers inputs, constraints, supported targets, rejection behavior, and the general return behavior without needing to enumerate output fields.

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?

The schema provides no descriptions for any of the three parameters, so the description must compensate. It does so clearly: workspace is a name or GUID, item is the warehouse name/GUID with endpoint rejection called out, and days is constrained to 1–120 inclusive, matching and extending the schema's bare type and range.

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 a specific verb and resource: setting the time-travel retention period on a warehouse. It also includes the exact SQL command (ALTER DATABASE CURRENT SET TIME_TRAVEL_RETENTION_PERIOD) which leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does and helps distinguish it from other setting tools.

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?

It explicitly states the supported target (Fabric Data Warehouses) and calls out a clear exclusion: SQL Analytics Endpoints are rejected with a ToolError. It does not name an alternative sibling to use instead, but the direct 'Set... on a warehouse' instruction together with the endpoint limitation gives clear contextual guidance.

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