knowl_gc_apply

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

The annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description builds on this by disclosing that purge is the one action with no undo and that deletion only occurs for approved, still-valid candidate ids. This adds meaningful safety context beyond the structured annotation and explains the conditional nature of destructive behavior.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler, and the critical precondition (preview + approval) is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place by either stating the gating condition or explaining the destructive/archive semantics.

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 tool with one optional parameter, destructive annotations, and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke it safely: when to call it, what can be destroyed, what cannot be undone, and how the parameter controls the destructive path. The sibling-list context is also sufficient because the description names the relevant predecessor, knowl_gc_preview.

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 100%, and the parameter description already explains the preview-origin and still-candidate rule. The tool description adds extra value by emphasizing the no-undo consequence of naming purgeItemIds and clarifying that archive and compress still run when the parameter is omitted, which reinforces the parameter's optional role.

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, 'Apply knowledge garbage collection', and clearly distinguishes it from the required sibling 'knowl_gc_preview' by making the preview a precondition. It also names the concrete effects (purge, archive, compress), so an agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 to use the tool: only after knowl_gc_preview and explicit user approval. It also gives actionable guidance on the optional parameter, explaining that omitting purgeItemIds still runs archive and compress, which prevents an agent from assuming the call is a no-op without it.

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