Clean or cancel a Metrica log request

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

The description discloses that the tool dispatches based on current status and adds a specific destructive consequence: 'cleaned data must be requested again to download later.' This goes beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true) by explaining the exact impact of the destructive action. However, it does not elaborate on other behaviors like auth requirements or error cases.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action and purpose, and includes a warning about destructive consequences. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary verbosity, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description covers the core functionality, usage context, and a key behavioral consequence. Annotations capture the destructive nature, and the schema handles parameter details. Minor gaps exist (e.g., what happens for statuses other than finished/prepared), but the description is largely complete for its complexity.

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 input schema provides 100% description coverage for both parameters (counterId and requestId), so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The tool description focuses on behavior rather than parameter details, and no additional meaning is provided beyond the schema. This matches the baseline for high schema 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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Free the counter storage quota by cleaning a finished (processed) log request, or cancel one still being prepared.' It specifies the resource (Metrica log request) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like logs_download, logs_status, and logs_request by focusing on cleaning/cancelling to reclaim quota.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: to free storage quota by cleaning finished requests or cancelling pending ones. It mentions 'Dispatches by current status' but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusionary guidance.

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