modify_dataset_properties

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation operation ('Modify') but doesn't specify permissions required, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects (e.g., quota enforcement), or error handling. The example adds some context but lacks critical details like rate limits or authentication needs 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The two-sentence structure is efficient, with the second sentence providing essential parameter details and examples. There's minimal waste, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points for clarity.

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 the complexity (mutation tool with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters well but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and output details. For a tool that modifies system properties, more information on safety and prerequisites would improve completeness.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains both parameters: 'dataset' as a path with an example, and 'properties' as a dictionary with example key-value pairs. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail all possible property types or constraints beyond the examples.

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 ('Modify') and resource ('ZFS dataset properties'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'create_dataset' or 'get_dataset_properties' by focusing on property updates rather than creation or retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'modify_dataset_permissions' or 'update_dataset_acl', which are also modification 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., dataset must exist), compare with similar tools like 'modify_dataset_permissions', or specify when not to use it (e.g., for creating datasets). The example hints at usage but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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