godot_clean_orphans

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, covering the destructive nature. The description adds 'quarantine' as an alternative, which is a behavioral nuance, and mentions 'unreferenced and orphaned' but does not explain the dry-run safety net or the default behavior. With annotations covering the destructive flag, the added context is moderately useful but not rich.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. No wasted words. However, it is so minimal that it omits essential safety context, though that is more a completeness issue than a conciseness one. It earns a high score for brevity and clarity.

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 tool has three parameters including a dry_run safety switch and a quarantine option, the description is incomplete. It does not mention that dry_run defaults to true, that file_paths can be specific or all, or that quarantine_folder offers a non-destructive alternative. An agent cannot call this safely without reading the schema. The output schema exists but does not compensate for missing usage guidance.

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 description mentions no parameters, and schema coverage is 0% from the description's perspective. The schema itself has detailed descriptions for dry_run, file_paths, and quarantine_folder, but the tool description adds zero value in explaining these. It does not compensate for the low coverage by highlighting the safety implications of dry_run or the role of quarantine_folder.

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 ('remove or quarantine') and resource ('unreferenced and orphaned asset files'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like godot_audit_assets (which likely only audits) but does not explicitly name the sibling; the action of removal sets it apart. Slightly under the top because it doesn't mention the audit-only alternative.

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 a destructive cleanup action but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. godot_audit_assets or godot_audit_orphan_nodes. It does not mention that dry_run defaults to true or that quarantine is an alternative to deletion. Usage context is only implied by the verb 'remove'.

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