sweep

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

Annotations only provide destructiveHint=true. The description adds valuable context: the operation is a soft-delete that moves topics to .trash, and dry_run=true is safe, while dry_run=false triggers the destructive action. This explains the behavior beyond the annotation.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word earns its place. It explains the behavior, the parameter's role, and the intended usage pattern without any fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers the operation, safety considerations, and usage workflow. No additional return type details are needed.

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 already describes the dry_run parameter with 100% coverage. The description enriches this by explaining the two-step workflow, clarifying that true is a preview and false performs the move. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's basic 'lists without moving'.

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 uses a specific verb+resource combination: 'List or soft-delete topics whose expiry has passed.' This clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'delete' (hard delete) and 'read' (general reading).

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 gives explicit usage guidance: first call with dry_run=true to review, then call with dry_run=false to perform the soft-delete. This is a clear when-to-use workflow. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like 'delete' for permanent deletion, but the soft-delete designation implies that distinction.

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