neurover_cleanup_new

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known and the description does not contradict it. Beyond that, the description does not explain what 'new' actually does – whether it resets prior cleanup state, creates a fresh job, or reuses the supplied jobId – which matters for a non-read-only call. With zero annotation contradiction present, the gap is disclosure, not conflict.

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 short sentence with no filler; the precondition is front-loaded in a trailing clause. It is appropriately sized but too thin to be fully efficient, since brevity here comes at the cost of meaning.

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 non-read-only tool with an undocumented UUID parameter, no output schema, and five closely related cleanup siblings, one sentence is not enough. The agent lacks the lifecycle context (where this sits between cleanup_scan, cleanup_step, cleanup_cancel) needed to call it with confidence.

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 coverage is 0%, so the single required jobId parameter is completely undocumented. The description does not mention jobId at all, leaving it ambiguous whether it identifies the finished cleanup being followed on or the new analysis being created – a material distinction for a UUID-constrained 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 verb ('Начать новый разбор' – start a new analysis) plus a precondition (after a completed or cancelled cleanup), so the general intent is discernible. However, 'разбор' is never defined in this tool family's vocabulary, and nothing distinguishes it from the neighbouring neurover_cleanup_start or neurover_cleanup_scan siblings.

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 phrase 'после завершённой или отменённой очистки' implicitly states the triggering condition, which is a useful when-to-use hint. It says nothing about when not to use it, and does not point to cleanup_start or cleanup_step as the alternative for the initial or mid-run cases.

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