Clear SSH Task Runs

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered; the description nonetheless adds real value by disclosing that local log files are deleted alongside records and that a content-bound confirmation gate applies. It stops short of explaining what 'content-bound confirmation' means operationally or whether deletion is recoverable.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the destructive action and its scope front-loaded before the confirmation caveat.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and annotations carry the destructiveness signal. But for a 5-parameter destructive tool with 0% schema documentation, the description leaves the confirmation mechanics and the taskId/workspaceId selector ambiguous.

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% across 5 parameters, and the description only vaguely gestures at confirmation ('content-bound confirmation') without clarifying the interplay between confirm, confirmationText and the duplicated confirmation_text, nor whether taskId or workspaceId selects the scope. It does not compensate for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb ('Deletes') and resource ('saved SSH task run records and local log files') plus the scoping choice ('one task or the workspace'), which distinguishes it from read-only siblings like list_task_runs and read_task_run_log. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so 4 rather than 5.

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 scope phrase implies when the tool applies (per-task cleanup vs whole-workspace cleanup) and 'Guarded policy requires content-bound confirmation' hints at a prerequisite. However, it never says when NOT to use it or how it differs from cancel_task_run or delete_task, so usage must be inferred.

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