sweep_partitions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and plainly discloses destructive hard-deletion, the tombstone mechanism, partition scoping, and the action-ledger side effect. It does not cover permissions or error states, but the key risks are surfaced.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler: the main action and rule details are front-loaded, followed by scope and side-effect notes. Every sentence contributes new information.

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 batch operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the target, deletion/tombstone behavior, scope, and ledger side effect. It omits return values and preconditions, but provides enough for a safe call.

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 only parameter, 'actor', has no schema description and schema coverage is 0%. The description never mentions actor or how it affects the sweep or ledger, so it adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the property title.

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 concrete action ('Apply every open partition's expiry and cap now'), the resource ('every open partition'), and the effect (hard-delete with a tombstone). This clearly differentiates it from reporting or retention sibling tools.

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 clear usage context: it performs the sweep immediately and only on open partitions, and explicitly says nothing outside a partition is touched. It does not name alternatives or when-not conditions, but the scope and trigger are clear.

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