rush_ship_clean

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, but it only says 'Clean,' which implies deletion without stating that files may be removed or that this is a destructive operation. It also omits key behavior such as the role of the `apply` flag (default false), which likely controls whether changes are actually applied or only simulated.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant language. It is concise, though it earns that conciseness at the cost of omitting important parameter and behavior details.

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 that this appears to be a mutating cleanup operation with no annotations and 0% schema parameter coverage, the description is not sufficiently complete. It does not explain the safety gate (`apply`), the permission flag (`allow_artifact_write`), or what 'clean' actually changes, so an agent would lack critical context for safe invocation.

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%, and the description mentions none of the three parameters: path, apply, or allow_artifact_write. An agent cannot determine what these parameters mean, how path is scoped, or what apply/allow_artifact_write control from the description alone.

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 ('Clean') and identifies concrete resources ('scratch directories and build caches') plus a clear timing context ('before release'). This is clear and distinct from sibling release/ship tools, though it does not explicitly name any alternative or contrast with a similar cleanup 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 phrase 'before release' provides a clear temporal trigger for when this tool should be used. However, it does not discuss when not to use it or name alternatives such as rush_release or rush_ship_gate, leaving some routing decision to inference.

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