Purge Fork Copies

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: admin role requirement, that live pages are untouched, that the fork record survives, that active forks are refused, and that an audit log entry is written. These are exactly the safety-relevant details an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and requirement, then history, then safety, then the dry-run recommendation. Each paragraph earns its place, though the v7.4 backstory is slightly more narrative than strictly necessary for tool selection.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers what gets deleted, what is preserved, refusal conditions, the returned count, and the audit log side effect. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents both fork_id and dry_run, including dry_run's exact behavior. The description's mention of dry_run re-frames it as recommended practice rather than adding new semantic detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('delete the page copies still attached to a merged or archived fork') with precise scope. An agent can immediately distinguish this from sibling tools like delete_fork, delete_content, or remove_fork_page.

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 names prerequisites ('Requires admin role'), when the tool is relevant (forks merged before v7.4 that kept their copies), when-not (active forks refused, live pages never touched), and recommends a safe ordering ('Use dry_run: true first'). This is close to ideal usage guidance.

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