Manage IM storage cleanup tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description adds the meaningful detail that non-query actions require confirm: true and that 'confirm' deletes and 'recover' restores from the recycle bin. It does not describe what is destroyed, whether deletes are reversible, or what permissions are needed, so the added behavioural context is useful but thin.

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 dense, front-loaded block: resource first, then action glossary, then the confirm rule. Every clause carries information and there is no padding.

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?

This is a multi-action tool with five parameters, nested objects, 0% schema descriptions, and no output schema. The description explains the action names and the confirm gate but gives no guidance on what data or params each action needs, so an agent cannot reliably invoke create, cancel, recover, or send_sms without guessing at payload shapes.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It does translate the action enum into meaningful Chinese labels and explains the confirm parameter's role, but it says nothing about app, data, or params, leaving the nested-object parameters undocumented.

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 names the resource (IM storage cleanup) and enumerates its seven operations (list, get, create, cancel, confirm, recover, send_sms), so an agent can tell this is a task-management tool distinct from the app/config/user siblings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with any named sibling tool.

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?

It states an important usage rule: all actions except queries require confirm: true. That much is explicit. It does not say when to choose this tool over alternatives, or which action applies in which situation beyond the one-word labels.

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