things_apply_destructive

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: container deletion can cascade, empty Trash is permanent and global, and separate owner grants are required. It also mentions that global-command gates are disabled, which is useful safety information for an agent deciding whether invocation is appropriate.

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 fairly short and front-loaded with the main action, but phrases like 'native verified' and 'global-command gates remain disabled pending their separate checks' are cryptic and do not earn their place. It does not waste many words, but clarity suffers from unexplained jargon.

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, multiple action enums, an optional nested target, and a scope revision parameter, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. It covers safety consequences and authorization, but omits the meaning of action values, when target is required, and how the revision check works. The output schema helps, but the usage contract remains under-specified.

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 does not explain the parameters action, target, requestId, or expectedScopeRevision. It weakly gestures at expectedScopeRevision with 'current scope revision,' but it does not define what each action does, when target is needed, or how requestId should be used. The burden falls entirely on the schema, which is insufficient.

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 says 'Apply a previously reviewed scope using its current scope revision,' which identifies a verb and a resource, but 'apply a scope' is jargon and does not plainly state that this executes destructive operations. The destructive nature is implied by mentions of deletion and empty Trash, but the core purpose remains somewhat vague without relying on the tool name.

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 notes authorization requirements and some destructive consequences, but it never tells an agent when to choose this tool over alternatives like things_preview_destructive or things_trash_item. The phrase 'previously reviewed' hints at a workflow, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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