prune_archives

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds essential behavioral detail: the default is a dry run, deletion requires explicit confirmation, it continues past individual failures, and it reports the actual removal count. These are important safety and execution traits not visible from annotations alone.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying critical information: the core action, the safety mechanism, and the failure/reporting behavior. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and wastes no words.

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 the destructive nature, the description covers the necessary safety context (dry run, confirm requirement), behavior on partial failure, and output reporting. Combined with full parameter schema coverage and an output schema, nothing essential is missing for correct 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 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description's 'older than a threshold' matches older_than_days and 'requires confirm:true' matches confirm, but it adds little beyond what the schema already states. 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Delete'), a specific resource ('archived site configs (from delete_site)'), and a precise scope ('older than a threshold'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_archived_sites and delete_site by tying it to archived configs and threshold-based pruning.

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 clearly explains how to use the tool: confirm:true triggers deletion, while default is a dry-run that lists and changes nothing. It implies when to use it (for bulk pruning of old archived configs) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving slight room for inference.

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