shadowgraph_purge

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, but the description adds important context: the operation is irreversible without a backup, and modes behave differently (logical keeps a journal skeleton, hard drops entries leaving a declared gap). This goes beyond the annotation and fully informs the agent about consequences.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, then gives the required preview step, alternatives, irreversibility warning, and mode behavior in an efficient, scannable structure.

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 tool with two parameters, an output schema, and full schema coverage, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is deleted, the prerequisite preview, relevant alternatives, irreversibility, and mode semantics. No critical information is missing.

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%, so the schema already explains both parameters. The description adds a concise restatement of logical versus hard behavior, but this largely duplicates what the schema's mode enum and project descriptions already provide. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Delete one project's decisions, attempts, memories, facts, relationships, events, and retry keys.' It also names sibling tools, distinguishing it from shadowgraph_redact and shadowgraph_backup, so an agent can select this tool confidently.

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 explicit usage guidance: run shadowgraph_purge_preview first, and notes that shadowgraph_redact is for sharing without deleting while shadowgraph_backup preserves a copy. It also warns about irreversibility without a backup, making the preconditions and alternatives clear.

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