Removes orphaned entities, relationships, and processed-chunk records when their source chunks no longer exist in a collection, keeping the graph consistent.
Remove orphaned entities, relationships, and processed-chunk tracking whose source chunks no longer exist in the collection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pool_name | Yes | Pool name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose what gets destroyed and scopes it to genuinely orphaned records, which is valuable, but omits irreversibility, whether a dry-run or confirmation exists, counts of removed items, and permission requirements.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the destructive scope is stated before any qualifier. Nothing could be cut without losing information.
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 an unannotated mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers what is deleted but not the response shape, reversibility, or required permissions. An agent can call it correctly but cannot predict consequences or results.
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?
Only one parameter (pool_name) with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already fully documents it. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, such as noting that pruning applies only to the named pool's collection — baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (Remove) and enumerates the exact resources pruned: orphaned entities, relationships, and processed-chunk tracking. The 'orphaned … whose source chunks no longer exist' qualifier distinguishes it from broader destructive siblings like trawl_pool_delete, though it doesn't explicitly name them.
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?
Usage is only implied through maintenance framing — an agent can infer this is post-deletion garbage collection. There is no explicit when-to-run guidance, no contrast with trawl_reindex_pool or trawl_sync_pool, and no note on whether a rebuild is a preferred alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.