rca_admin_purge_namespace

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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: irreversibility, the confirm=true guard with its 'aborted' failure mode that deletes nothing, the no-cross-account boundary, Enterprise plan gating with the specific error lower tiers receive, and single-namespace granularity. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Longer than typical, but the length is earned for a destructive admin tool: purpose, irreversibility warning, scope boundary, plan gating with alternatives, parameter mapping, and return shape each carry distinct weight. The safety-critical warning is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the Args/Returns sections are efficient.

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?

Covers every dimension an agent needs to invoke a high-risk tool correctly: the action, failure modes ('aborted', 'security_violation'), boundary conditions (own data only, one namespace at a time), plan eligibility, per-item alternatives, and the return format ({namespace, deleted_count}). Nothing material is missing.

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 reported at 0% at the top level, so the description compensates for the two behaviorally meaningful parameters: namespace ('purges only that one namespace, not all three at once') and confirm ('must be true, or this returns an aborted error without deleting anything'), adding failure-mode semantics beyond schema text. Token and client_id are structural and adequately described in the nested 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?

States a specific verb ('Permanently delete') with a precise resource ('storage namespace') and explicit scope ('ALL of YOUR OWN records... graphs/models/results'). The bulk nature is clear and it differentiates itself from the per-item siblings by naming them explicitly, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does that others don't.

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?

Provides complete when/when-not guidance: use for one-call bulk purge of own records, do not use on Free/Starter/Pro plans (which return security_violation error), and names the exact alternatives (rca_graph_delete, rca_model_delete). Even covers the gap that no per-item results delete exists.

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