Purge history

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description explicitly discloses that deletion is permanent, destroys rollback ability, cannot be undone, and requires user confirmation. This gives the agent the critical behavioral context needed before calling an irreversible 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?

Two purposeful sentences: the first front-loads the action and scope, the second delivers the irreversible warning. No filler or redundant repetition of the schema.

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 tool with fully documented parameters, an output schema, and a clear scope, the description covers what matters most: outcome, irreversibility, and the safety requirement. Nothing essential an agent needs to invoke it correctly appears 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 100% and each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description adds a helpful conceptual mapping ('older than N days, or everything for one entity') to the parameters, but does not substantially extend what the schema already provides.

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 ('delete') and resource ('history entries and revisions'), and precisely defines the two purge modes: older than N days or scoped to one entity. This clearly differentiates it from sibling read/recovery tools like repovive_list_history and repovive_restore_revision.

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 implies the destructive intent and instructs to confirm with the user before calling, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives such as restore_revision or undo_last_change. It gives invocation conditions, but not a full when/when-not routing.

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