neurover_cleanup_approve_files

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

The line 'Ничего не удаляет' is the only behavioral disclosure and it sits in tension with destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, since approving files does commit them to deletion downstream. The description never says what record is actually mutated, that confirm must be literally true, or that expectedUpdatedAt is a concurrency token that makes the call fail on stale state — all material for a non-read-only operation.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and no filler. However, the cryptic 'шаг 4 (вариант)' wastes the lead while the genuinely non-obvious facts — confirm=true and expectedUpdatedAt semantics — are omitted, so the brevity costs more than it earns.

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?

A four-parameter, all-required mutation tool with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a dense cleanup sibling family demands far more than two sentences. Missing are the stage/state invariant behind jobId, the staleness contract for expectedUpdatedAt, and what a successful 'fixation' returns or blocks.

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 0%, so all four required parameters depend on the description, yet only mediaAssetIds is obliquely covered ('точные id отдельных файлов'). jobId, confirm, and especially expectedUpdatedAt (an optimistic-locking token) are left entirely unexplained, which is the main source of misuse risk.

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 second clause states a specific verb and resource: record ('зафиксировать') the exact ids of individual files for deletion. The framing 'Очистка, шаг 4 (вариант)' is opaque and does not separate it from the highly confusable siblings neurover_cleanup_approve and neurover_cleanup_step, so the agent gets the action but not the 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?

Only the fragment 'шаг 4 (вариант)' hints at placement in a sequence; there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over neurover_cleanup_approve or neurover_cleanup_step, no prerequisites (must a scan/report have produced the jobId?), and no note on whether a follow-up apply step exists.

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