neurover_cleanup_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds only that a reportUrl is produced. It says nothing about the groupRetention parameter, which accepts "delete_all" and clearly implies a destructive retention decision — a major behavior left undisclosed, especially given destructiveHint=false.

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 compact clauses with the step position front-loaded and the view options stated inline; nothing is padding. Slightly information-dense in a way that assumes the reader knows the cleanup flow, but it is efficient.

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 3-parameter tool with a nested object, no output schema and no schema descriptions, the definition is thin: jobId's origin, the meaning of groupRetention, and what the reportUrl actually points to are all missing. An agent could not safely decide whether passing groupRetention here triggers real deletion.

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 the description must carry the load. It explains the view enum values (duplicates vs library) well, but jobId is unexplained and the nested groupRetention map (group id -> keep_one/delete_all), the most consequential parameter, is never mentioned at all.

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 identifies the action ("открыть галерею для пользователя") and positions it as step 2 of duplicate cleanup, which is more than a restatement of the name. However, it never clarifies whether the result is a UI view, a generated report URL, or a persisted artifact, and it does not distinguish it from siblings like cleanup_status, cleanup_verify or cleanup_step.

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?

"шаг 2" implies sequencing — this is called after a scan/step 1 — which is genuine, if terse, usage context. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative among the many cleanup_* siblings (status, verify, approve, step, report), leaving the agent to infer the workflow order.

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