pinecone_purge_expired

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses several important traits: the deletion is permanent, confirm=true is required, searches only hide expired records, and the operation actually frees storage. It does not cover permissions, reversibility, or error behavior, but the core destructive semantics and confirmation requirement are clearly stated.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then immediately states the confirmation requirement, then adds operational context. Every sentence is short and earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers the operation's purpose, permanence, and confirm requirement well, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. However, it leaves the index and namespace parameters entirely unexplained, which is a meaningful gap given the lack of schema descriptions.

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%, so the description must explain parameter meaning. It does explain the critical confirm=true requirement, but it says nothing about the required index or namespace parameters, leaving two of three parameters semantically undocumented.

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: 'Permanently delete records whose TTL has lapsed.' It also distinguishes this TTL-based purge from search behavior, which merely hides expired records. This lets an agent differentiate it from generic record deletion and search operations.

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 clearly says when to use the tool: when you rely on TTL and need storage actually freed, and recommends running it on a schedule. It also contrasts it with searches, which already hide expired records. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name the delete_records sibling as an alternative for non-TTL deletion.

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