clean_backup_artifacts

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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true; the description adds substantial context beyond that: files are local and irrecoverable, preview-by-default, confirmation gating, SPOTIFY_MCP_CONFIRM=never bypass, age semantics based on mtimes, and that unrecognised files are listed rather than deleted.

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?

It is dense and front-loads the destructive action and target scope before the caveats, with each sentence carrying distinct information. It runs long, but almost no clause is redundant given the number of behavioral guarantees it must convey.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains the PLAN/preview return, the listing of unrecognised files, and all safety gates. For a destructive file-deletion tool with zero required params, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: ages are mtimes and the default retention window comes from SPOTIFY_MCP_BACKUP_ARTIFACT_RETENTION_DAYS (separate from the library window). It also clarifies that `files` overrides `family`/`older_than_days`, though the schema already states this.

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?

It states a precise verb (delete) plus the exact resource scope (NON-library backup artifacts), enumerating the three file families by glob pattern. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling `delete_backup` and names the files that belong to that other 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 gives explicit when-to-use routing (non-library artifacts vs. library backups via `delete_backup`), the safe default (preview), the commit path (dry_run=false, confirmation-gated), and refusal conditions (naming a library file, clients that cannot prompt). Alternatives and exclusions are both covered.

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