hyperspace_vacuum

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait that the purge is permanent and that disk space is reclaimed, which is valuable. However, it says nothing about whether the operation is long-running/blocking, whether it locks the collection, permissions required, or whether it can be interrupted — material omissions for a destructive maintenance 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?

Two tight sentences; the effect (purge + reclaim) is front-loaded and the return value follows. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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-param maintenance call with no output schema, the description covers what it does and roughly what it returns ('vacuum status and reclaimed-space result'). It does not cover operational risk — duration, blocking behavior, or reliability concerns — which is the missing piece an agent needs before firing a database-wide operation.

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 and the description introduces none, so there is no parameter semantics to clarify. Baseline of 4 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and target ('perform vacuuming on the database') plus the concrete effect: purging deleted vectors and reclaiming disk space. This implicitly separates it from hyperspace_delete_points (which marks points deleted) and hyperspace_rebuild_index, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to run this versus delete_points, rebuild_index, or cache_clear, and no prerequisites stated (e.g., run after bulk deletions, disk pressure). The agent must infer that it is a post-deletion maintenance operation purely from the phrase 'purge deleted vectors'.

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