artifact.cleanup

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a critical safety constraint (only_confirmed must remain true), but it does not clarify whether cleanup is permanent, what effects it has, or what the tool returns. This is insufficient for a potentially destructive operation.

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 extremely concise—two sentences—with the core purpose stated upfront and a critical safety warning following. Every word adds value, with no redundancy.

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 has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too terse. It conveys the general purpose and one safety rule, but leaves parameter semantics and behavioral outcomes unexplained, making reliable invocation difficult.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning only to only_confirmed via the safety note, while dry_run and max_age_hours remain unexplained beyond their names and defaults.

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 'cleans up' with a clear resource 'old confirmed artifacts', making the purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like artifact.list_pending (lists) and artifact.get (retrieves) by focusing on deletion/cleanup.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The safety note about only_confirmed is a constraint, not an explanation of appropriate contexts or exclusions.

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