purge_orphans

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It names the targets (orphan/unused data blocks) but does not disclose that this is a destructive and likely irreversible operation, nor does it clarify whether all orphans globally are purged or what side effects might occur.

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 a single short sentence with the action and target front-loaded. Every word contributes to meaning, with no filler or redundant detail.

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 no-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description names the action and resource adequately. However, because this is a destructive purge, it lacks a warning about irreversibility, scope, or expected result, leaving some important context unstated.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden for the description. The baseline of 4 applies because nothing additional is needed beyond the empty 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 states a specific action ('清理' / purge) and a specific resource ('无用户的孤儿数据块' / orphan data blocks without users), with concrete examples (materials, meshes, images). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like delete_object or mesh_cleanup, which target different resources or scopes.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mesh_cleanup or delete_material. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions stated, leaving the agent to infer when this is the right choice.

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