Clean project

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true. The description adds specific artifacts that will be removed, including the conditional export directory. This provides valuable behavioral context beyond the annotation, though it does not mention permanence or confirmation prompts.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the action ('Remove generated artifacts') and lists specifics without extraneous words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema) and the presence of destructiveHint annotation, the description is mostly complete. It covers what is deleted and notes the optional export. A minor gap is not mentioning that deletion is permanent, but the annotation already signals destructiveness.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description mentions 'optionally the export/ output' which aligns with the include_exports parameter but does not add additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses specific verbs ('Remove') and lists concrete resources ('.godot cache', 'legacy .import folder', 'export/ output'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_file' or 'manage_ci_pipeline' by focusing on project-generated artifacts.

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 states what it does (removing generated artifacts) and mentions optional export removal. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., delete_file for individual files) or when not to use it (e.g., if cache is needed). The context is clear but no exclusions are provided.

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