gap_purge_topic

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

Annotations only say destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial nuance: it is a soft-delete/archive (deleted=1), retains purged gaps, leaves promoted gaps alone, returns a specific payload, and requires a distinct permission due to fleet-shared scope. This goes well beyond the structured hints.

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 dense and every sentence earns its place: purpose, compared alternative, edge behavior, retention semantics, required confirmation, return shape, and permission warning. It is structured front-loaded with the most important decision-relevant 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 a destructive, bulk, permission-gated tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers return shape, retention, exclusions, confirmation, and share-scope. The only notable gap is lack of clarity around app_id and what failure modes look like, but those are minor compared to the overall coverage.

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 compensate. It does explain the confirm parameter ('Pass confirm=<topic> to proceed') and implies topic is an exact match, but the role of app_id is never clarified. Given that the note says 'purges every app's gaps', the necessity and meaning of app_id is ambiguous.

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 opens with 'Soft-delete every gap under an exact topic in ONE call', giving a specific verb, resource, and scope. It also explicitly differentiates itself from gap_delete by mentioning bulk cleanup and the per-call rate limit, and clarifies that promoted gaps are left intact.

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 description explicitly positions this as the bulk-cleanup alternative to gap_delete's per-call rate limit, mentions the confirm guardrail, and warns about fleet-shared scope and the special gap_purge permission. An agent can clearly determine when this tool is intended and what constraints apply.

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