defs_vacuum

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds genuinely useful safety context beyond that: defaults to dry-run, and referenced resources are never rewritten. It stops short of explaining what the plan output contains or how expectedRevision gating behaves.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the operation plus its safety defaults are front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though the second sentence is doing parameter work that belongs in the 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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the destructive/dry-run behavior is covered. But with 0% parameter description coverage and an undocumented revision guard, an agent lacks enough to invoke this correctly in the non-dry-run case.

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 description coverage is 0% across four parameters, so the description must compensate — it only clarifies the dryRun default. Nothing is said about path, workspaceId, or the expectedRevision concurrency token, which is the most consequential parameter to understand.

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 and resource: 'Plans or conservatively removes unused top-level SVG definitions.' The scope qualifier (top-level, unused) is useful, but it doesn't differentiate itself from adjacent maintenance siblings such as document_optimize or document_normalize_ids.

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?

'Plans or conservatively removes' plus the dry-run default implies a two-phase plan-then-apply workflow, so usage is inferable. However, it never says when to prefer this over other cleanup/optimization siblings, nor what preconditions (revision match) apply.

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