colab_process_export_cleanup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that 'remote artifacts are unchanged,' which is helpful behavioral insight. However, it does not explain what 'discard' means in terms of local state or whether this operation is destructive to local files/processes, leaving some ambiguity.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that front-load the core purpose and usage condition. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple cleanup tool, the description covers the essential context: when to use it and that remote artifacts are untouched. It doesn't detail return values or exact local effects, but given the lack of output schema and the tool's likely simple nature, it is reasonably complete.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It references the 'failed export stage' but doesn't clarify how the parameters (process_id, remote_path, local_path, session) relate to this discard operation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Discard') and identifies the exact resource ('failed export stage'). It clearly communicates the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like colab_process_export or colab_transfer_cleanup by focusing on the failed export scenario.

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?

It provides an explicit condition: 'Use only after abandoning retry'. This clearly states when the tool is appropriate. It doesn't name alternative tools explicitly, but the condition implies that this is for a specific failure state, which is sufficient guidance for an agent.

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