clean_case

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the risk profile is known. The description usefully itemizes the destructive surface and notes the mesh is only removed optionally, but omits irreversibility, confirmation behavior, and the effect on the retained first time directory.

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, listing targets in descending importance. Grammar is slightly compressed ('Remove results: time directories...') but nothing is wasted.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers what is removed but says nothing about error handling, whether the case directory itself survives, or what state the case is left in. The mesh-regeneration refusal is covered only in the schema, not the description.

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 75%, with keep_mesh and keep_processor documented in the schema but keep_logs left bare. The description roughly mirrors the defaults (logs and processor removed, mesh kept by default) but adds no syntax or edge-case meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Remove') and enumerates exactly which artifacts are targeted (time directories after the first, postProcessing, logs, processor dirs, optionally the mesh). It is clearly distinct from delete_case's whole-case removal, though the sibling relationship is never stated explicitly.

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 a cleanup use case but never says when to use this over delete_case or in what workflow (e.g., before a re-run). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no mention that the first time directory is retained as an intentional rule.

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