nexus_purge_keystones

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether deletions are permanent, reversible, require confirmation, or have side effects (e.g., affecting related resources). It also omits details like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, which are critical for a deletion tool.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions like guidelines and transparency.

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?

Given that this is a destructive tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and an output schema (which may help with return values), the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context such as safety warnings, behavioral details, parameter explanations, and usage guidance, making it inadequate for reliable agent operation despite its conciseness.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic context. The description mentions 'one or more' keystones, hinting at the array nature of 'keystone_ids', but doesn't explain what keystone IDs are, their format, or how to obtain them (e.g., from 'nexus_list_keystones'). This leaves significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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 action ('Delete') and resource ('NEXUS Keystone backup files'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'nexus_list_keystones' (list) and 'nexus_restore_keystone' (restore), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The description is specific but could be slightly more precise about what 'Keystone' represents in context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'nexus_restore_keystone' for recovery or 'nexus_list_keystones' for viewing available backups. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing to list keystones first) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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