purge_export_data

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that it deletes exports data from both database and disk, which is useful and implies a destructive, irreversible operation. However, it doesn't state required permissions, whether the action is reversible, or what the response looks like. A 3 is appropriate: it adds some behavioral context but leaves significant gaps.

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 cluttered with a redundant recipe header, an HTTP method, and a long keyword list that repeats the tool name and synonyms. The core sentence ('Remove all exports data...') is buried after non-essential metadata, violating front-loading. Much of the text does not earn its place.

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 zero-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the essential scope but lacks operational details like prerequisites, side effects, or confirmation of irreversibility. It is minimally complete but leaves the agent guessing about safe invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to document parameters, and it correctly doesn't attempt to. No penalty for missing parameter info since there are none.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Remove all exports data, including items on disk without database entry.' The verb 'remove' and the scoped resource 'exports data' make the destructive purpose clear, distinguishing it from siblings like bulk_export_recipes or get_recipe. However, the presence of an HTTP method and a keyword dump adds noise that dilutes the clarity slightly.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The keywords list 'bulk actions' and 'export recipe', but there's no statement like 'use this to clear all exported recipe files' or a warning about irreversibility. The agent must infer usage from the name and path alone.

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