delete_media_sweep

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

Annotations establish destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context on top: the sweep skips the grace period, is judged against server-side state so an unsynced attachment from another device is treated as unreferenced and destroyed, and it is rate limited to 10 calls per hour. That last detail is exactly the kind of operational constraint annotations cannot express.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the action and its scope come first, the destructive edge case second, the rate limit last. Each sentence carries distinct information an agent needs before calling.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the action, its blast radius (cross-device unsynced files included), and throttling. Nothing needed to call it safely is missing, and there is no return value contract to explain.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly describes an unscoped, whole-profile sweep, which is consistent with an empty parameter object, but adds no parameter-level meaning because there is none to add.

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 gives a specific verb (delete) plus a precisely scoped resource: every stored photo/video of the profile that nothing references any more, and it contrasts that with the default grace period. It is clearly distinguishable from delete_media in substance, though it never names the sibling to make the contrast explicit for an agent scanning the tool list.

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?

"Instead of waiting for the grace period" implicitly tells the agent this is the immediate-purge variant, which is useful usage context. However, it never states when to prefer this over delete_media or read_media_usage, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the choice between siblings to inference.

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