delete_unhealthy_files

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden; it clearly discloses that this deletes real media in bulk and is destructive. It also provides a concrete precautionary procedure. It does not detail failure modes or permission needs, but it flags the most critical behavioral trait well.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and scope, and the second delivers the mandatory safety warning. The most critical information is front-loaded.

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 single enum parameter, the full schema coverage, and absence of an output schema, the description provides all necessary context: what the tool does, what data it targets, that it is destructive, and the required confirmation workflow.

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 already provides 100% coverage by describing table3 and table6 meanings and the enum constraint. The description repeats this mapping but adds no new parameter-level details, so a baseline score of 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 ('Delete'), a precise resource scope ('every file in the transcode-error table or health-check-error table'), and the destructive nature ('from disk', 'deletes real media in bulk'). It also names the API endpoint, making it fully distinguishable from sibling delete tools like delete_file or bulk_delete_files.

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 clear operational guidance: 'always list the affected files with query_table and confirm with the user first.' This tells the agent when and how to use the tool safely. It does not explicitly discuss when to prefer sibling deletion tools, but for this distinct bulk-destructive operation the guidance is sufficient.

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