cw_cal_cleanup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it declares this is destructive (delete), scopes exactly what is destroyed (generated .CAL files and .bak copies), and states a safety guarantee (won't touch your own scripts). Gaps remain: no mention of whether deletion is permanent/undoable, what happens when no matching files exist, or what the call returns.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the rationale, then the safety boundary. Every sentence earns its place; no filler.

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 one-optional-param, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, scope, and safety sufficiently to invoke correctly. It could go slightly further on outcome (return value, behavior when nothing matches), which keeps it off a 5.

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 100% and the single optional parameter's enum plus 'Omit to remove every generated script' semantics are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or behavior beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Delete) and the exact resource: the CAL script files written by cw_cal_run plus their .bak copies. The tie to cw_cal_run and the 'restore the folder to its 37 shipped scripts' framing makes it unmistakable against siblings like cw_cal_plan, cw_cal_run, and cw_cal_help.

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?

Gives clear context for when to reach for it (after running CAL leaves a stray file) and an explicit exclusion: only MCP-<program>.CAL names are touched, hand-written scripts are safe. It doesn't name an explicit alternative action or say what to do if nothing was generated, but the triggering condition is clear.

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