word_cleanup_sow

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive (destructiveHint: true), and the description reinforces that by detailing irreversible removals. It adds beyond annotations by listing specific content types removed and stating 'All removals are tracked for auditability,' which is valuable behavioral context for an agent.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a bullet list of removals, a usage context sentence, and a Python-like example with Args and Returns. It is concise yet comprehensive, with no wasted words.

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 moderate complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description covers inputs, behavior, and return value (cleanup statistics). It could be slightly more specific about what 'cleanup statistics' includes, but overall it provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 input schema already provides clear descriptions for all three parameters (file_path, output_path, author), covering 100% of the schema. The description adds extra value by noting the default behavior for output_path ('defaults to overwriting input') and the author default, plus an example call with real paths.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Clean') and resource ('SOW document'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like word_generate_sow or word_parse_sow_template. It lists exactly what is removed (e.g., highlighted text, bracket placeholders), making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly states 'This is the final step after generate_sow to ensure the document is presentation-ready with no visible template artifacts.' This tells the agent exactly when to use it and implies not to use it before generation. The example with file paths further clarifies typical usage.

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