discard

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 discloses the destructive scope limit (artifact ids only, never user file paths), which is the key safety fact. It omits reversibility/confirmation expectations and any rate or batching behavior, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the critical constraint, then usage guidance, then a compact Args block. Every sentence adds distinct information with no 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 one-parameter destructive tool with an output schema present (so return values need not be described), the definition covers purpose, scope-safety, and input shape adequately. Minor gaps remain around undo/irreversibility.

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 coverage is 0% and the single param has no schema description, so the description must compensate. It does by stating refs is "Artifact id, or list of artifact ids", matching the anyOf shape; it does not say where to obtain those ids (e.g., list_artifacts).

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Delete temporary artifacts from the workspace") and immediately narrows scope with the artifact-id-only constraint. This makes clear it is not a generic file deletion tool and differentiates it from siblings like list_artifacts or export.

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?

Explicitly conveys when-not to use it ("Artifacts expire on their own, so this is only needed when the user explicitly asks to clean up"), which is exactly the routing signal an agent needs. No alternative tool is named, but the usage condition is unambiguous.

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