cleanup_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It clearly indicates destructive deletion, preview-before-deletion, explicit confirmation, deep mode, Chrome/Chromium prerequisite, cross-platform behavior, and the library preservation option. This is far beyond minimal disclosure and fully prepares an agent for the tool's safety profile.

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?

Although the description is long, it is well-structured with a critical warning front-loaded, a scannable categorized list, and clear sections for workflow and use cases. Every element serves the operational needs of a destructive, cross-platform tool; there is no filler or redundancy.

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's complexity, destructive nature, absence of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers prerequisites, the eight categories scanned, the preservation escape hatch, a step-by-step workflow, and use cases. No critical detail needed to invoke the tool safely is missing.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a recommended workflow that maps confirm=false to preview and confirm=true to execution, and clarifies preserve_library as keeping library.json 'while cleaning everything else.' This usage-level guidance goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 (cleanup) and resource ('all NotebookLM MCP data files across 8 categories'), with explicit scope. It is clearly differentiated from sibling tools, which are about notebooks, sessions, auth, or health, none of which perform system-wide data deletion. The 'Always runs in deep mode' detail adds further precision.

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?

It provides explicit use cases (clean reinstall, troubleshooting auth issues, removing all traces before uninstall, cleaning old browser sessions) and a recommended workflow that sequences preview and execute calls, followed by setup_auth/re_auth. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but since no sibling tool is an alternative for cleanup, the guidance is sufficient.

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