vm_set_ttl

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

The description adds context beyond annotations: it's a write operation, auto-deletion depends on daemon, and TTLs persist to a JSON file. However, it does not explain behavior if daemon is not running, or idempotency of multiple calls. The annotations already provide safety signals; description complements them well.

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 short, well-structured with bold opening, prerequisite section, and parameter list. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy.

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?

While the description covers prerequisites, parameters, and persistence, it omits details on error handling, overwriting behavior for existing TTLs, and explicit return value description (though output schema may cover that). Minor gaps prevent a perfect score.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose, minimum for minutes, and optional nature of target. This is essential for correct invocation.

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 'Set' and resource 'VM', explains the TTL concept and auto-deletion behavior. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like vm_cancel_ttl and vm_list_ttl through its unique action.

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 mentions a prerequisite (daemon must be running) and persistence details, but does not explicitly compare to siblings or provide when-to-use/not-use guidance. This leaves the agent without clear direction on choosing this tool over alternatives.

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