prune_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core destructive behavior ('drop every block no longer reachable') and the modification of the root block, but does not state whether the operation mutates the input notebook or returns a new one, nor any reversibility or validation details. This is a partial disclosure, hence a 3.

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 sentences with zero wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the usage context is appended efficiently. It is a model of conciseness for a tool description.

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 that this is a mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the return value, whether the notebook object is modified in place, or what happens to dropped blocks (deleted vs. detached). The ambiguous 'output' parameter is also unaddressed. For an agent to sequence this correctly with the notebook object, it needs more detail.

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 only 33% (only rootInputs is described). The description mentions 'given outputs' and 'root block' but does not clarify the meaning of the output parameter (a string) or the notebook parameter. It fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions, leaving the agent to guess the output's role. Minimal added value, so a 2.

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 action ('point the root block at the given outputs and drop every block no longer reachable') and a clear resource (the notebook graph). It also implies the goal ('cut a large notebook down to one chain'), which differentiates it from siblings like run_notebook and inspect_notebook. The verb+resource is unambiguous.

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 says to use this 'before running it', giving clear context for when to invoke it. It implies a pre-processing step relative to run_notebook, but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria. Since it provides clear usage timing, it earns a 4.

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