bg3_test_cleanup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the destructive scope: every test spawn, every BG3Test boost, all applied statuses, and that recording stops. It does not state whether the removal is reversible, whether it requires a running session, or what happens to non-test content, so the behavioral picture is partial.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and the affected entities enumerated. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the zero-parameter schema needs no elaboration. The remaining gap is the absence of any annotation-substitute guidance on safety, timing, or preconditions for a destructive teardown call.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-level meaning is missing.

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?

States a specific verb ('Remove') with concrete resources: test spawns, boosts tagged BG3Test, applied statuses, plus 'stop recording.' That is far more than a restatement of the name and tells the agent exactly what the tool operates on. It stops short of distinguishing itself from similarly themed siblings such as bg3_se_hot_clean or bg3_se_reset_lua.

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, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The agent can infer it belongs in a test teardown flow, but the description never says to call it after tests, before redeploying, or in preference to other cleanup tools.

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