video_cleanup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states that files in 'keep' are preserved, but lacks details on whether deletion is irreversible, what happens if paths don't exist, or any other side effects. This is insufficient for a destructive tool.

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 short and well-structured: a one-line summary, context, and param list. It uses markdown for the 'keep' note. No unnecessary 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 no annotations, the description should cover safety and error behavior, but it does not. The tool is simple, and the output schema exists (not shown), so the basic behavior is conveyed, but lacking details makes it adequate but not fully complete.

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 has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description adds essential meaning: 'files' are absolute paths to delete and 'keep' are paths to preserve. This is clear, though it could include error behavior.

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 verb 'delete' and the resource 'intermediate video files after a workflow'. It also explains the 'keep' behavior. Although it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, the purpose is specific enough to stand out among the many video 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 says 'Useful for multi-step pipelines that leave temporary outputs', providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools.

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