Run Lifecycle

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

The description adds context beyond the destructiveHint annotation by naming specific operations (expire, archive, decay, dry-run) and clarifying that dry-run is a preview. This helps the agent understand the range of behaviors without contradicting annotations.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately states the tool's category, then the usage condition. Every word is purposeful, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to cover return values. The description adequately communicates the core purpose and usage constraint. While it could elaborate on parameter interactions, the schema already documents those, making the description sufficient.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not mention any parameters or add meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so no extra value is contributed.

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 identifies the tool as a 'Maintenance tool' for lifecycle operations (expire, archive, decay, dry-run), which distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on memory, expenses, or reminders. The verb 'run' and resource 'lifecycle' are explicit.

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 'Use only when the user/admin explicitly asks to expire, archive, decay, or dry-run lifecycle processing.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance and implicitly restricts usage to explicit requests, leaving no ambiguity.

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