clean_clam_records

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. "Clean" weakly implies removal of records, but the description does not say what is destroyed, whether the operation is scoped (all records vs. a date range), whether it is reversible, or what permissions it needs – a significant gap for a destructive cleanup 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?

The description is a single short phrase with zero waste, which is structurally fine, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness. There is no front-loaded scope or constraint to justify the extreme length.

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 maintenance operation with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description supplies nothing an agent needs to call it safely – no scope, no retention semantics, no confirmation of destructiveness.

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?

The schema defines zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter semantics could usefully be added.

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?

"Clean ClamAV records" names a verb and a resource, and the "ClamAV records" scope does loosely separate it from sibling cleanup tools like clean_container_log. However, "clean" is ambiguous for a records resource – it could mean purge old records, delete all records, or sanitize them – so the agent learns the domain but not the actual 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no routing to the obviously related sibling get_clam_records or to scan_clam/get_clam_file. The agent must infer entirely from the name that this is the destructive counterpart to reading records.

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