tc_compress

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses destructive behavior (deleting layers), irreversibility (cannot restore), and a safety guarantee (step baseline unaffected). This is strong for a delete operation, though it could further mention any locking or concurrent effects.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the core purpose, then add key consequences. No filler or redundancy — every clause earns its place.

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 destructive tool with 4 parameters, the description covers purpose, effect, and non-target impact; the schema handles parameters and output schema exists for return details. It does not explain the default values or parameter interactions, but those are already in the schema, so the overall context is sufficient.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description adds minimal parameter-specific value beyond the schema, only aligning 'retention period' with keep_seconds. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description states 'reclaim archive space' and 'delete change layers older than retention period' — a specific verb and resource. It also differentiates from the sibling tc_restore by explicitly noting that recycled layers cannot be restored, making it clear this is the pruning counterpart.

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 usage context (when you need to reclaim archive space) and mentions the retention period, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives such as tc_save or tc_clean. It names restore only as a consequence, not as a decision point.

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