Clean local job workspace

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

Annotations already signal destructive and idempotent behavior; the description adds useful nuance by scoping destruction to 'local temporary data' and by disclosing the safety gate: deletion happens only after verification or explicit risk confirmation. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotation flags.

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 entire description is one focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and object, then states the safety condition. Every clause contributes either scope or an important caveat.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering destructiveness/idempotency, the description does not need to describe return values or basic safety. It supplies the key deletion scope and conditional logic. The only minor gap is that 'verification' is left vague and the exact behavior when neither condition is met is not explicitly spelled out.

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%, so the description carries some burden. 'Explicit risk confirmation for incomplete jobs' reasonably maps to confirm_partial_cleanup, adding meaning to that flag. However, the description never names job_id or clarifies how it selects the workspace, leaving the agent to infer the obvious mapping.

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 states a specific action ('Deletes local temporary data') and a clear resource (local data associated with a job workspace). It also distinguishes itself from the export/verification siblings by focusing on cleanup and deletion, so an agent can tell this tool apart without inspecting schemas.

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 gives a usable precondition: cleanup happens 'only after verification' or with 'explicit risk confirmation for incomplete jobs.' However, it never defines what 'verification' entails, names no alternatives, and does not place the tool in a workflow relative to siblings like verify_yandex_upload or retry_failed_items.

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