gograph_session_cleanup

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

Annotations already signal destructive and non-read-only behavior. The description adds useful context: active logs are preserved, linked repository paths are not followed, and it returns the number of deleted files. The redundant note that annotations mark it destructive is not additive but does not detract.

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?

Description is structured with WHEN TO USE and RETURNS sections, making it easily parseable. However, the sentence 'MCP annotations mark this operation mutating and destructive' is redundant with the structured annotations, which slightly reduces conciseness.

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?

The description fully explains what is deleted, conditional behavior (active log preserved), prerequisites, and return value. For a zero-parameter destructive tool, this is sufficient for safe invocation, though an explicit note on idempotence (already in annotations) could have made it a 5.

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 tool has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description appropriately notes 'No prerequisites', which clarifies that no arguments are needed and the call is unconditional aside from session state.

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 states the tool deletes 'stale inactive regular session telemetry JSONL logs' and scopes it 'without following linked repository paths'. It differentiates from sibling session tools (audit, create, end) by focusing on cleanup, so purpose is 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?

Provides clear usage context with 'WHEN TO USE: Call after auditing to keep the repository clean' and 'No prerequisites'. It gives a solid recommendation but does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use, so it falls 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.