Clean up old drafts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses deletion scope, safety boundaries (only .ai-media, final assets untouched), conditional deletion of used drafts, dry-run default, and automatic cleanup. It does not explicitly state irreversibility or permissions, leaving some destructive-action context implicit.

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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and retention rules, then safety boundaries, then dry_run behavior, then automatic cleanup. Every sentence adds useful information without 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 mutation/cleanup tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope, safety, defaults, deletion mode, and automatic behavior well. It could be more complete by stating irreversibility or what a non-dry-run call returns, but the core operational context is present.

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 75%, and the description adds meaningful semantics for dry_run and the three age thresholds in prose. It explains what the thresholds represent (rejected, used, untouched drafts) and default behavior. It does not directly map parameter names to each threshold, but the meaning is clear.

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 verb and resource: removes old drafts from <project>/.ai-media. It also defines the three cleanup categories, making the purpose much clearer than the title alone. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from any sibling tool, so it falls short of the top score under the rubric.

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 clearly explains default behavior (dry_run true lists candidates) and how to actually delete (dry_run false). It also notes automatic cleanup once per session unless auto_cleanup is off, which is important usage context. It does not name explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so 4 rather than 5.

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