colab_transfer_cleanup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the destructive action ('Remove') and adds a safety-relevant behavioral nuance about probing and limiting cleanup to the same runtime when the lease expires. It does not detail return format, permissions, or failure handling, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 short, front-loaded sentences. The first states the primary action; the second adds a precise conditional. No filler or redundant content.

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?

Given moderate complexity, no annotations, no output schema, and a safety-related conditional, the description covers the critical operational aspects. However, it omits return/error behavior and does not explicitly state what happens when the lease is valid (implicitly just cleanup). Still, the provided information is enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in the transfer cleanup flow.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning beyond restating 'returned staging paths' and referencing the lease-expired condition for lease_token. It does not compensate beyond schema guidance.

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 starts with 'Remove returned staging paths', which names the specific verb (remove), resource (staging paths), and scope (returned by failed transfers). This clearly distinguishes it from generic file removal tools like colab_fs_remove and aligns with the transfer cleanup workflow.

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 implies use after failed transfers to clean up returned staging paths, and provides a specific conditional guideline: 'If the lease expired, probe and clean only the same runtime.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, but the context is clear from the sibling toolset and phrasing.

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