cleanup_working_files

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

The destructiveHint annotation already signals a destructive tool. The description adds value beyond that by enumerating which directories will be deleted, which are kept, and by revealing that dry_run lists the targets without deleting. This gives agents useful optional context 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 one dense sentence, front-loaded with the action, and every part directly contributes to the usage: what gets deleted, what gets kept, and the dry-run option. There is no redundancy or verbosity.

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 simple deletion tool with no output schema, the description covers the most important operational facts: exact directory list, retained directories, and dry-run. But it leaves also_previews/also_checkpoints a bit under-specified and does not mention what happens if a directory is missing. It still gives enough to call it safely.

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 only 33%, so the description needs to compensate. It does add meaning to dry_run by explaining its behavior (lists what would go), but remaining parameters (also_previews, also_checkpoints) are only hinted at indirectly via the keep-list. This is adequate but incomplete.

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 ('Delete') with an explicit resource (intermediate directories in the current working dir) and enumerates the exact directories to remove and preserve. It clearly identifies its scope and is not ambiguous against any sibling tool.

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 for clearing intermediate processing directories while preserving masters and outputs, and the dry_run instruction hints at a how-to-list step. However, it never explicitly states when to use it vs alternatives or what conditions make this the right cleanup tool.

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