clean_fluent_app

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

Annotations already signal destructiveHint and idempotentHint, and the description reinforces this by calling out that it 'removes all compiled artifacts'. It adds value beyond annotations with the follow-up instruction and the authentication note, which are not present in the structured metadata.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence adds necessary information: what it does, the consequence, and the follow-up action. There is no redundant or irrelevant text.

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 operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what gets deleted, that it is destructive, what to do afterward, and that authentication is not needed. This is fully sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters. The tool description does not add additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what is in the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 identifies the action ('Delete') and the specific resource ('build output directory of a Fluent (ServiceNow SDK) application'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like build_fluent_app or pack_fluent_app. It is concise and unambiguous.

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 when to use it by stating 'Run build_fluent_app afterward to regenerate', which ties it to the build workflow. It also notes that no authentication is required, providing useful context. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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