cleanup_to_export

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Apply the current cleanup rules' implies a mutation (it likely modifies the document), but the description doesn't disclose whether this is destructive, whether it requires a certain document state, how the report is generated, or what side effects occur. For a potentially destructive operation, this is a significant gap.

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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words, front-loading the core action. It is appropriately concise for the information it provides, though that information is limited.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient for a tool that performs a multi-step process (cleanup, export, report writing). It does not state what the report contains, what kind of working copy is created, or what the expected outcome is. Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, likely side effects), the description is incomplete.

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% and the description provides no explanation of the parameters. The schema only lists names and defaults, giving no meaning to 'suffix', 'rules_path', or 'document_id'. The description fails to explain what these parameters control, such as how the suffix affects the output filename or how rules_path selects cleanup rules, leaving the agent unable to set them correctly.

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 ('Apply', 'export', 'write') and resource ('cleanup rules', 'working copy', 'report'), making the purpose clear at a high level. However, it does not distinguish itself from the many sibling tools that also involve cleanup, export, or relinking, such as 'relink_to_export' or 'save_export_copy', so the agent may not know which to choose without further investigation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention contexts where cleanup is needed, how it relates to other export or relink tools, or any exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and generic description, which is insufficient given the large and overlapping sibling set.

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