purge_del

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the most safety-critical traits: permanence/irreversibility, ticket provenance, and a staleness guard that refuses changed batches. It omits other meaningful behaviors such as what accept_warnings gates, whether warnings block execution, and partial-failure semantics.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its permanence. Every sentence carries information (action, precondition, rejection rule); nothing is padded.

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, irreversible, 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers provenance and atomicity but leaves the warning-acknowledgment flow, selection-mode interactions (`all` vs `batch_ids` vs `older_than_days`), and the result shape unexplained.

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 all five parameters are bare names. The description adds real meaning for `ticket` (must come from preview_delete with scope="purge") and implies batch_ids derive from the preview, but says nothing about `all`, `older_than_days`, or the safety-relevant `accept_warnings`.

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 and resource combination with emphasis on irreversibility: "Permanently delete .del batches selected by the matching purge preview." The preview-derived selection model distinguishes it from a generic delete, though it never names trash_paths as the non-permanent sibling, so an agent must infer the contrast.

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 an explicit prerequisite: the ticket must originate from preview_delete with scope="purge", which effectively defines when the tool is callable. It also documents a rejection condition (batches added/changed after preview), but offers no guidance on when to prefer trash_paths instead of permanent purge.

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