knowledge_purge

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

No annotations provided, but description fully covers irreversible deletion, citation cascade, confirm required, batch rejection for mixed archives, and that supersession pointers are preserved.

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?

Single paragraph covering all necessary points without redundancy. It is front-loaded with action and guard, but slightly dense; could be split into more sentences for easier parsing.

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 with no output schema and no annotations, the description completely covers preconditions, behavior, safety, side effects, and use cases. No gaps.

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 100%, but description adds meaning: explains the archive guard for slugs, mixed list behavior, and that confirm must be explicitly true as a safety gate. Slightly redundant with schema but adds useful context.

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 clearly states it 'Hard-delete[s] one or more archived knowledge pages and cascade[s] their citations.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like knowledge_archive (archive first) and knowledge_restore.

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?

Explicitly says when to use: 'clean up tombstoned cruft after merge/supersede workflows' and when not: 'not for retiring active pages.' It also provides a guard and advises calling knowledge_archive first.

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