Plan verified repository cleanup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, yet the description still adds real substance: it rejects protected/ambiguous/unsupported records, hashes every preimage, and discloses exact text edits or copy-only media transformations. This goes well past the safety profile the annotations provide, though it doesn't cover preconditions like acknowledgement flags.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each clause carries information rather than filler. The jargon ('V3.3', 'preimage', 'repository-trust artifact IDs') adds density but is defensible for a domain-specific tool.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile, so the description only needs to characterize the plan's behavior and constraints. It does that well, missing only the sequencing/prerequisite context that would make it fully self-contained.

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 documents all four parameters including the two acknowledge_* flags. The description reinforces the artifact-ID requirement ('exact verified') but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Create a fresh, read-only V3.3 cleanup plan') and its 'never changes the repository' framing implicitly separates it from the mutating sibling apply_cleanup. It stops short of naming that sibling, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is implied: the tool operates on 'exact verified repository-trust artifact IDs' and the artifact_ids schema note says 'from a fresh scan,' which quietly points the agent at codeinspectus_scan first. There is no explicit when-to-use vs apply_cleanup/rollback guidance or sequencing statement.

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