preview_delete

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the ticket-issuance side effect, the blocking failure mode ('risk="block" and no ticket'), and the destructive semantics of purge. It omits ticket lifetime/single-use enforcement details and any permission or irreversibility warnings for purge.

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?

Front-loads the core action and ticket mechanics, then details each scope in one clause. Dense and largely waste-free, though the final blocking sentence could be folded into the scope discussion rather than trailing.

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 six-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation-gating tool, the description covers the decision-relevant surface: scope semantics, recursion constraint, purge selectors, and the block outcome. It stops short of explaining what the returned ticket is and how it is consumed downstream, which an agent would need to complete the workflow.

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% with six parameters including a free-form scope string, so the description must do all the work and does: it supplies the two valid scope values (absent from the schema), explains recursive, and enumerates the mutually alternative purge selectors (batch_ids, older_than_days, all=true). Only 'paths' is described implicitly via 'moving paths into the .del directory', which is still adequate.

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 compound verb+resource: validates a delete request and issues a one-time ticket, then breaks down the two scopes (trash vs purge). It never names the sibling tools that actually execute the deletion (trash_paths, purge_del), so the two-phase relationship is implied by 'previews' and 'ticket' rather than stated outright.

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?

Explains per-scope when to use: scope="trash" for moving paths into .del, scope="purge" for permanently removing .del batches, with recursive=true required for non-empty directories. It gives no explicit 'do not call trash_paths/purge_del without a ticket' routing instruction, so the sequencing to siblings stays implicit.

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