set_detection_date

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: existing items are not modified unless items is passed for full replacement. However, it does not describe other side effects, permissions, return values, or consequences of changing the policy. The transparency is adequate for the stated action but incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 two concise sentences, with the primary action stated first and the key caveat second. Every word adds value; there is no redundant or vague phrasing. It is appropriately front-loaded and efficient.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavior (setting policy, item modification condition) but omits details like return values, what happens to existing data when policy changes, and the exact behavior of missingPolicy values. It is sufficient for basic usage but lacks some contextual depth that could be expected for a setter.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by tying missingPolicy and outputFormat to the global policy and clarifying the items semantics (full replacement vs no modification). However, it does not go beyond what the schema already describes for each parameter, so it only marginally enhances parameter understanding.

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 tool sets the global detection date policy (missingPolicy, outputFormat) and specifies it does not modify existing items unless items is provided for full replacement. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on individual items (add/remove/list_detection_date_item). It is clear and specific, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies when to use this tool (to set global policy) and mentions the condition for modifying items, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast it with item-level operations. The usage context is implied rather than explicit, so it meets the baseline but lacks guidance on alternatives.

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