Compact folders

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

The description discloses important behaviors beyond sparse annotations: 'the store is rewritten' (non-idempotent, not read-only) and 'Nothing readable is lost' (not destructive despite rewriting). It also warns 'do not interrupt it,' which is critical for a mutation operation.

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 only three sentences, all essential: first states purpose, second provides context, third gives parameter guidance and a warning. It is front-loaded and wastes no words.

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?

The description covers the main effect, parameter options, and a key warning. However, it does not explain the confirm parameter or the expected duration. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be described, so the omission is minor but notable.

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 description explains the core parameters folder_id and account_id, but the confirm parameter (boolean, default false) is not mentioned. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should cover all parameters; the omission of confirm leaves a gap.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Reclaim the disk space left behind by deleted messages.' It explains the compaction operation and distinguishes between compacting a single folder vs. all folders for an account, aligning precisely with the title 'Compact folders'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use each parameter: 'Pass folder_id for one folder or account_id for all of an account's.' It also warns not to interrupt the operation, but does not provide alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use scenarios.

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