create_cleanup_rule

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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains the key behavioral safety gate: the rule is created inactive and deletes live records only after explicit activation. This meaningfully supports the destructiveHint=false annotation and clarifies the lifecycle. It does not discuss permissions, idempotency details, or the effect of optional flags such as cascade_delete.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states what is created, and the second states the activation-dependent behavior. The only minor redundancy is the trailing [Write] marker, which repeats what the non-readOnly annotation already conveys.

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 7-parameter mutation with very low schema description coverage, the description covers the high-level activation lifecycle but leaves most inputs unexplained. An agent can understand the safety gate, but it lacks enough information to confidently choose values for condition, age_seconds, policy_sys_id, or the optional cleanup flags.

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?

With 7 parameters and only 14% schema description coverage, the description provides no parameter-level meaning at all. It does not explain condition syntax, age_seconds semantics, policy_sys_id usage, or the optional clean_audit, cascade_delete, clean_journals, or match_field behavior beyond the one schema-described parameter.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: create an inactive Table Cleanup Rule for a Data Management Policy. It also clarifies that the rule targets live records and is not active until explicitly activated, which helps distinguish its intent from generic create tools. It does not name the closely related activation or archive/destroy siblings, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 the workflow context: create a cleanup rule in an inactive state for a Data Management Policy, and only activate it separately. That gives useful usage context, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over create_archive_rule, create_destroy_rule, or when not to use it.

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