file_clean_apply

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the key behavioral trait: files are moved to .trash/ and never physically deleted. This is valuable safety context, though it doesn't mention permissions, reversibility, or edge-case behavior.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence efficiently conveys the operation, prerequisite, and safety behavior. No wasted 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 is sufficient for a simple apply-step tool, covering purpose, prerequisite, and safety. However, the absence of parameter semantics and reliance on sibling context leaves some gaps, especially since no annotations are provided.

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% and the description provides no details about 'path' or 'pattern'. The parameter names are self-explanatory in context, but the description doesn't specify how they interact or what formats are expected.

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 function: applying cleanup by moving files to .trash/ rather than physically deleting. It distinguishes itself from preview tools by explicitly saying '实际清理' (actual cleanup) and mentioning the prerequisite of preview.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: after preview and after passing adjudication ('需先 preview 且通过裁决'). This effectively tells the agent to use the preview sibling first, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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