wm_clean

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and fully discloses behavioral traits: dry-run default changes nothing, execution moves items to a recycle area rather than deleting by pattern, actions are hash-chained in a journal allowing rollback, and G3 execution requires approval. This is unusually transparent for a cleanup/mutation tool.

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?

Four dense sentences, each earning its place: the main action, the default behavior and output, the safety properties, and the usage condition with warnings. It is front-loaded with the purpose and avoids filler.

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?

Despite having no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what happens, what changes, what execution does, when it should be used, and the approval prerequisites. An agent has enough context to select and safely invoke the tool.

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?

Since the schema covers all 5 parameters with descriptions, the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by tying execute, approve, and approver to the G3 approval workflow and journal/rollback guarantees, and by clarifying that execute=false is a dry-run. It does not duplicate schema details unnecessarily.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Plan or execute a policy-driven cleanup' and immediately defines the dry-run vs execute modes. This makes it distinguishable from the sibling wm_audit/wm_rollback/wm_govern tools, which concern history, rollback, and governance decisions.

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?

States a clear trigger condition ('workspace has accumulated policy-expired byproducts') and gives explicit safety instructions: do not set execute=true without first running a dry-run, and G3 requires approve=true and an approver. It does not explicitly name sibling tools that should be used instead, but the use case is scoped well enough to route an agent.

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