metrika_logs_cleanup

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the operation is irreversible, requires confirmation, and depends on an environment flag being enabled. That is useful context beyond the structured fields.

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 compact sentence front-loads the purpose and packs action semantics, irreversibility, and the prerequisite into terse clauses with no wasted words.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the mutation's danger and prerequisites. The remaining gap is the unexplained identity parameters, which an agent must still infer.

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% and the schema defines no enums, yet the description supplies the two meaningful action values ('clean' vs 'cancel') and their distinct effects, which the schema does not. counter_id, request_id, and idempotency_key remain unexplained, so it only partially compensates for the documentation gap.

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 states a specific verb (deletes/stops) and resource (prepared files / unprocessed request) and explains that the goal is freeing Logs API quota. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not name a sibling tool to contrast against.

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?

It gives a context signal (freeing Logs API quota) plus prerequisites ('needs YANDEX_METRIKA_LOGS_ENABLED') and a caution ('confirm first'). However, it never says when to choose this over siblings like metrika_logs_create or metrika_logs_list, so routing guidance is only implied.

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