Clean Eden Diagnostic Artifacts

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that the tool defaults to dry-run, meaning it is non-destructive by default, and that it only affects diagnostic bundles, not user files. This adds valuable safety context beyond the annotation.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary purpose, then adds the dry-run default and scope exclusions. Every word contributes meaning without unnecessary fluff.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, scope, and safety default. Given the output schema exists and destructiveHint is annotated, return values and destructive nature are covered. However, the parameter semantics remain under-specified, and the description could briefly mention how keep_latest and older_than_days define the retention policy.

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%, and the description only mentions 'dry-run' indirectly. The meanings of session_id, keep_latest, and older_than_days are not explicitly explained, relying on parameter names and defaults. This is a significant gap given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 the specific verb 'Apply retention' and clearly identifies the resource as 'Eden MCP diagnostic bundle names'. It explicitly lists what is outside scope (game, profile, patch, save, key, firmware, arbitrary user files), distinguishing it from cleanup of other file types and from sibling tools like eden_cleanup_sessions.

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 explicit scope: it only applies to diagnostic bundle names, and lists what is outside scope. It also mentions the default dry-run, informing the agent that preview is the default behavior. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, even without naming alternative tools directly.

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