gap_purge_topic

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does so thoroughly: soft-delete semantics, retention (deleted=1), removal from gap_list, promoted gaps left intact, fleet-shared scope, and the gap_purge permission requirement. This goes well beyond a simple one-line summary and prepares the agent for side effects and access expectations.

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 appropriately sized: the main behavior is stated in one dense opening sentence, followed by essential details and a warning note. Every sentence adds meaningful context without fluff. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 bulk operation with no output schema or annotations, this description is highly complete. It covers what is deleted, what is preserved, retention behavior, scope across apps, permission requirements, confirmation, and the exact return shape. An agent has enough context to invoke it safely and understand consequences.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain 'topic' (exact topic), 'confirm' (must equal topic to proceed), and the return object, but the required 'app_id' parameter is never mentioned or explained. Given that app_id is required and its role is ambiguous in a fleet-shared purge, the parameter guidance is incomplete.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Soft-delete every gap under an exact topic in ONE call.' It clearly distinguishes this bulk tool from sibling gap_delete by referencing the per-call rate limit and bulk cleanup use case. The wording leaves no doubt about what the tool accomplishes.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: for bulk cleanup of a junk/test namespace while avoiding gap_delete's per-call rate limit. It names the alternative (gap_delete) and clarifies behavior for promoted gaps and the need to pass confirm=<topic>. It also warns about the fleet-shared scope and elevated permission, which guides appropriate use.

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