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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuine value beyond them: the deletion is permanent/irreversible and cascades to the run's insights, and it is scoped to the authenticated customer (with the superadmin customerId path noted in the schema).

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, zero filler, and the destructive/permanent warning is front-loaded immediately after the action statement. Every sentence earns its place.

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 annotations covering the safety profile and the schema fully describing all three parameters, the description supplies what is missing at the semantic level (irreversibility, insight cascade, customer scoping). No output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether the confirm flag or authorization prerequisites fail gracefully.

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%, so confirm, conversationId and customerId are already documented, giving baseline 3. The description adds only the customer-scoping context that loosely maps to customerId; it adds no format or constraint detail for conversationId or confirm.

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 (permanently delete) and resource (a run), plus the cascade to its insights. 'Run' is clearly distinct from the delete_agent, delete_optimization, delete_user and delete_webhook siblings, so an agent can differentiate without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: obviously for removing a run. There is no explicit when/when-not, no mention of alternatives such as get_run or list_runs, and no statement that this should be used only after review of the run. 'Scoped to the authenticated customer' is context but not invocation guidance.

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