creo_cleanup_project_versions

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

Beyond the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral detail: files go to the Recycle Bin, the named keep file is never removed, unrelated files are untouched, and the operation is scoped to the current working directory and .prt/.prt.<version> files. This is exactly the context an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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 one tight sentence that front-loads the precondition, then states the action, scope, and exclusions without filler. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from the name or schema.

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 cleanup tool with one parameter, the description covers what files are affected, the location, the keep-file exception, and the safety behavior. Combined with the annotations and fully documented schema, an agent has enough information to invoke it correctly without an output schema.

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 single parameter is already fully documented in the schema with the description 'Exact latest Creo part file to keep in the current Creo working directory.' The tool description's mention of the 'explicitly named keep file' reinforces the parameter's role but does not add new semantic information. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema description coverage.

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: it moves every non-keep .prt or .prt.<version> file in the current Creo working directory to the Windows Recycle Bin. It clearly differentiates itself from the many create/verify siblings by naming the exact cleanup behavior and exclusions.

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 gives a clear precondition: use this after a newly generated part has been verified. It does not name alternative tools or explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but no cleanup sibling exists, so the context is sufficient for an agent to recognize the intended workflow.

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