bulk_schema_cleanup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'safety checks' and 'detects active consumers and provides options for handling them,' which adds valuable context about the tool's cautious approach and interactive elements. However, it doesn't detail what happens during cleanup (e.g., irreversible deletion, audit trails), permissions required, rate limits, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for a bulk mutation tool.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: an overview, a key feature, and supported scenarios. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. While it could be slightly more detailed given the tool's complexity, it avoids fluff and is appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 the tool's complexity (bulk schema cleanup with 5 parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It omits critical details: what the tool returns, how 'active consumers' are handled, the meaning of 'force' or 'pattern,' and the full behavioral implications of a bulk mutation operation. More context is needed for safe and effective use.

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 input schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning no schema-level documentation. The description mentions 'safety checks' (hinting at 'check_consumers' and 'force'), 'test schema cleanup, deprecated schema removal, and version purging' (relating to 'cleanup_type' and 'keep_versions'), and 'schemas' (possibly linking to 'pattern'). However, it doesn't fully explain each parameter's role, acceptable values (e.g., what 'cleanup_type' options are), or interactions, failing to compensate adequately for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 purpose: 'Clean up schemas in bulk with safety checks.' It specifies the action (clean up), resource (schemas), scope (bulk), and safety aspect. While it distinguishes itself from siblings like 'bulk_schema_migration' or 'bulk_schema_update' by focusing on cleanup rather than migration or updates, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these alternatives in the description text itself.

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 usage context through 'with safety checks' and mentions specific cleanup scenarios: 'test schema cleanup, deprecated schema removal, and version purging.' However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_subject' or 'bulk_schema_migration,' nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for use.

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