discard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly communicates that this is a destructive deletion action, limits its scope to temporary artifacts, and emphasizes that it cannot affect the user's own files, which is essential safety information.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the first states the action, the second explains a safety constraint, the third provides usage context, and the final line documents the parameter. No fluff or unnecessary repetition.

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 single-parameter destructive tool, the description provides everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly and safely: what it deletes, what it cannot delete, when it is appropriate, and how to specify the targets. The output schema exists, so return-value details are not needed.

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%, so the description must explain the parameter, and it does: 'refs: Artifact id, or list of artifact ids, to delete.' This adds the crucial semantic that refs are artifact ids rather than file paths, which is not present in the input schema.

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 precise verb and resource: 'Delete temporary artifacts from the workspace.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from file-related siblings by stating it only accepts artifact ids, never file paths, and therefore cannot delete the user's own files.

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 explicitly states when the tool is needed ('only needed when the user explicitly asks to clean up') and when it is not ('Artifacts expire on their own'). It also gives a hard constraint: inputs must be artifact ids, not file paths.

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