colab_local_cleanup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it enumerates exactly what is destroyed and draws a clear safety boundary around notebooks and user data. It stops short of stating irreversibility (whether deletion is permanent or recoverable) and what 'old' means for local trash, which matters for a destructive 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, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the safety guarantee. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated.

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 no-parameter local cleanup tool with an output schema already covering return values, the description supplies what an agent needs: target scope and excluded scope. The remaining gap is the retention threshold ('old') and permanence of the deletion, both mildly relevant to a destructive call.

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, so the schema baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing parameter-level for the description to add or omit.

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 concrete verb ('Delete'), a precisely bounded resource (temporary local artifacts: transfer zips, saved plots, old local trash), and an explicit negative boundary ('never touches your notebooks, data'). That negative boundary is what separates it from nearby siblings like colab_rm and colab_notebook_delete, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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 only implied: the agent can infer this is the local disk-reclamation tool, which pairs with colab_local_footprint, but the description never states when to reach for it (e.g., 'use when local disk usage is high') nor names any alternative it should be preferred over.

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