sweep_blocked_by

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool mutates data by removing references and clarifies the trigger condition. It doesn't mention reversibility or the exact scope (whether it sweeps all stale references globally or only those related to the recent batch), but the core behavior is transparent enough for an agent to use it safely.

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 with no wasted words. The action is front-loaded, and the usage timing follows immediately. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what it does and when to call it. A minor gap is whether the sweep affects only references created by the current batch or all historical stale references, but this is not critical given the simple action.

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, and the schema has 100% coverage with an empty properties object. There is no need for parameter explanation. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than arguments.

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 ('Remove') and resource ('blocked_by references that point to tickets that no longer exist'). It clearly distinguishes this as a cleanup operation for orphaned references, which is distinct from sibling tools like delete_ticket or update_ticket.

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?

It explicitly states when to invoke the tool: 'Call once after finishing a batch of delete_ticket calls.' This gives unambiguous temporal context and implies the intended workflow, even though it doesn't name alternative tools. No alternative is needed for such a specialized cleanup action.

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