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

The description says it purges a job's record and result — a destructive mutation — yet annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. The description also omits whether the purge is reversible, what permissions are required, and the effect on the associated result. This is a direct conflict with the declared safety profile.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action and scope are stated immediately. It is efficient, though slightly terse for a destructive operation.

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 destructive purge with an output schema, the description needn't explain return values, but it should convey irreversibility and permission expectations. Combined with the readOnly annotation contradiction, the definition does not adequately equip an agent to call it safely.

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?

Only one parameter (job_id) exists and its schema description covers it at 100%, including provenance ('from apk_teardown_submit's response'). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('early purge') and resource ('an apk-teardown job's record and result'), making it identifiable against siblings like apk_teardown_job_status and apk_teardown_submit. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the action is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'before its normal expiry' implies the timing/intent for calling it early rather than waiting for automatic cleanup, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. Usage is only implied.

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