expire_push

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds critical details: 'IRREVERSIBLE' and 'destroys the payload and any attached files for good'. It also mentions the auth requirement, providing meaningful context for a destructive operation.

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 brief and impactful, with each sentence providing essential information: the action, irreversibility, and required credentials. It is well-structured with the warning front-loaded.

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 simple destructive tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, irreversible consequences, and authentication requirements. No additional information is needed 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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter url_token with a clear description. The tool description does not add additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 the verb 'expire' and resource 'push', and explicitly says 'delete' and 'IRREVERSIBLE'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the destructive action, while other tools like create_push and preview_push are non-destructive.

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 implies usage for permanently deleting a push and notes the required authentication (PWPUSH_API_TOKEN). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, but the sibling context makes the purpose clear.

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