Opentoonz Clean

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares the operation irreversible, explains that only contents are removed while the workspace is retained, and describes the confirmation contract (elicitation prompt, or explicit confirm=true for automation/tests). It omits error behavior and whether repeated invocation is safe.

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-loads the verb/resource pair, then parameter semantics, then the destructive warning — an appropriate order with little waste. The mid-sentence line break before 'what selects drawings' is a minor formatting rough edge.

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 3-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, irreversibility and the confirmation flow, which is most of what an agent needs. Residual gaps are the meaning/path format of 'workspace' and any post-deletion result or error reporting.

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 compensate. It does for two of three parameters: 'what' enumerates drawings/render/scripts/orphans/all with the default, and 'confirm' explains the prompt-vs-explicit-true flow. The 'workspace' parameter is only implied rather than defined (name vs. path).

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 (Delete) and resource (a workspace's generated files) plus the benefit (reclaim disk space). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling opentoonz_delete_workspace by clarifying that 'Only the contents are removed — the workspace itself is kept.'

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?

Gives clear context (reclaim disk space) and explains the selection semantics of 'what', including the default of 'all'. It does not name opentoonz_delete_workspace as the alternative when the workspace itself should be removed, nor state prerequisites such as the workspace existing.

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