prune_archive_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses destructiveness, the guard condition that prevents deletion without a snapshot, and the safe dry_run default. It omits permission requirements, whether deletion is recoverable/rate-limited, and any logging behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loads the dangerous operation and its safety condition, then the dry_run default, then the parameter notes — an efficient ordering. The Args block slightly duplicates the schema's defaults, which is mild redundancy rather than waste.

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 destructive, 2-parameter maintenance tool with no annotations, the description supplies the essentials: what gets deleted, what protects against mistakes, and the safe default. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but permission/irreversibility details remain unspecified.

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 0% and the schema entries carry only titles and defaults, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of both min_age_days (age threshold for candidacy) and dry_run (report-only vs. actually delete), which is exactly the semantics missing from the schema, though the stated defaults merely repeat the schema's default fields.

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 and resource ('Delete archived originals') plus the exact filter conditions (older than min_age_days, must have a snapshot), so the agent knows precisely what set of files is affected. No sibling tool (e.g. snapshot_note_tool) could be confused with this destructive maintenance operation.

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?

Gives clear operating context and a safety gate ('Safe to run: only deletes when a PNG snapshot exists') plus the dry_run default and how to activate real deletion. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when *not* to prune (e.g. when snapshots are stale or storage is not a concern), which keeps it from a 5.

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