Clear completed put.io transfers

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds valuable context by clarifying 'Downloaded files are not deleted', which directly addresses a common concern. It also specifies 'all' transfers, indicating broad scope. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentences, both essential. The first sentence states the core action, and the second adds a critical caveat about files not being deleted. No wasted words, and the structure is front-loaded with the primary verb.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description fully explains the behavior and a key edge case. Combined with rich annotations (destructive, idempotent) and clear sibling context, the description is complet for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on behavior rather than parameters, as there is nothing to explain. No parameter information is needed.

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 ('removes') and resource ('completed transfer entries from the transfer list'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like putio_cancel_transfers (which cancels transfers) and putio_list_transfers (which lists them). The scope is precise: 'all completed' entries, and the title reinforces the action.

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 its use case (cleaning up completed transfers) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. Sibling tools like putio_cancel_transfers are mentioned in the context, but the description itself does not direct the agent to prefer this tool for completed entries or avoid it for active ones.

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