knowledge_purge

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

The annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is already covered. The description goes well beyond that by disclosing citation cascading, the archive-first guard, whole-batch atomicity on a mixed list, the confirm gate, and that supersession pointers are deliberately preserved. This is rich behavioral context an agent needs before calling an irreversible tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and appropriately dense, with each sentence carrying actionable information. There is mild redundancy in restating the archive-first constraint twice ('rejects any page that is not already archived' and 'All slugs must be archived; a mixed list...'), which is emphatic but slightly repetitive.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description nonetheless covers the mutation's effects (hard delete, cascade, preserved supersession pointers), failure behavior, and the safety gate. For an irreversible two-parameter tool, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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%, so the schema documents both parameters, including that all slugs must be status=archived and confirm must be true. The description mostly reinforces this but adds real meaning: the batch-level rejection rule when a mixed list is supplied and the citation cascade triggered by the slugs. Limited to elaboration rather than new format/syntax detail, so not a full 5.

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?

Specific verb (hard-delete) plus resource (archived knowledge pages) with explicit scope including citation cascade. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling it depends on (knowledge_archive), so an agent can tell them apart without opening either schema.

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?

States the prerequisite ('call knowledge_archive first'), the intended use ('clean up tombstoned cruft after merge/supersede workflows'), and the exclusion ('not for retiring active pages'). Both the when-to-use and when-not are explicit.

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