prune_paper_tables

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It states the tool deletes files from a vault directory based on a keep list, making the destructive nature clear. However, it does not disclose whether deletions are permanent, if there are rollback options, or any authorization requirements. The explanation is minimal but adequate for a simple file deletion operation.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for overall purpose followed by a bullet-point list of parameters. Every element serves a purpose with no redundancy. The most critical information is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters, an output schema (not shown), and no nested objects. The description covers the core function and parameter meanings but omits details like default behavior (e.g., what if slug is null?), edge cases (empty keep list), or consequences of the deletion. It is just sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect, but not comprehensive.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains each parameter: paper_id (arXiv ID), keep (list of file identifiers with examples), and slug (vault directory name). This adds meaningful context that the schema lacks, meeting the need for compensation.

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 function: prune (delete) table files in a vault directory, keeping only those specified in 'keep'. It identifies the specific resource (papers/<slug>/tables/) and the action (delete all except listed). This distinguishes it from siblings like prune_paper_figures and extract_paper_tables.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., prune_paper_figures). The description does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or typical scenarios. Usage context is only implicit from the tool name and action.

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