delete_preview_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply states 'delete preview files' without mentioning that this is destructive, what exactly is deleted (e.g., disk files vs. project metadata), whether it can be undone, or any side effects on the project. This is a critical omission for a deletion 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?

The description is a single concise sentence, front-loading the action. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it lacks the detail expected for a destructive operation. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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 deletion tool with no annotations, no parameters, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to inform an agent of necessary context. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., active sequence/project), what happens after deletion, or any side effects. Compared to other tools in the suite, this lacks completeness.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (since there is nothing to cover). Per the rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information, but there are no parameters to explain, so this is acceptable. The additionalProperties:true flag is not addressed, but it is not a defined 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 states a clear verb (delete) and resource (preview files), identifying the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming 'preview files', a specific resource not mentioned in any other tool. However, it does not elaborate on what preview files are or the scope of deletion, so it lacks some specificity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of context (e.g., must have a sequence open). The description provides no exclusions or alternative routing, leaving the agent to infer usage. This is a significant gap given the verbose sibling list.

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