dirty_work_items

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that remove_outputs will delete files from disk and that the goal is regeneration, but it does not explain side effects such as whether dirtying alone triggers a cook, or what happens to existing cached outputs. The destructive potential of remove_outputs is mentioned but not emphasized.

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 brief and front-loads the core purpose in a single sentence, followed by a compact parameter list. The ctx line is boilerplate and not exposed as a tool parameter, making it slightly nonessential, but overall the text is efficient with no 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?

For a two-parameter tool without an output schema, the description covers the main action and the optional destructive flag. However, it leaves unclear when regeneration happens, what the tool returns, and whether a subsequent cook step is required, which an agent might need to know for a TOP workflow.

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 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains node_path as a TOP node path and remove_outputs as 'Also remove output files from disk', which adds real behavioral intent. The line about ctx is irrelevant to the exposed tool schema but does not harm the two actual parameters.

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 action ('Dirty work items') and resource ('on a TOP node'), and clarifies the purpose ('so they can be regenerated'). It is unambiguous among siblings because no other tool performs 'dirtying', though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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 purpose implies usage: use this tool when you want to mark TOP work items for regeneration. However, it does not explicitly describe when to choose this over related tools like cook_top_node or generate_static_items, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions.

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