twining_prune_graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains that the tool removes orphans and discloses the dry_run behavior for safe reporting. It does not cover potential side effects, permissions, or what happens if no orphans exist, but for a simple prune operation it is reasonably transparent.

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 sentences and a brief note about optional filtering; every word earns its place. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and is highly efficient with no redundancy.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of removed IDs, count). It also does not differentiate from sibling tools like twining_archive_stale or twining_housekeeping, which may overlap in functionality.

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 description adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema descriptions. It restates 'only prune orphans of these types' for entity_types and 'report orphans without removing them' for dry_run, which adds slight clarity but does not significantly enrich the schema information.

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 ('remove') and the resource ('orphaned knowledge graph entities') with an explicit definition of orphaned (no relations). It distinguishes this tool from sibling operations like twining_add_entity or twining_neighbors by focusing on cleanup of stale, disconnected entries.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this to clean up stale or disconnected entities' and mentions optional filtering. However, it does not specify when NOT to use (e.g., if you need to archive or delete specific entities) or mention alternatives like twining_archive_stale or twining_housekeeping.

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