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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context by naming exactly what gets destroyed ('stored outputs (edit group)') and emphasizing irreversibility ('Cannot be undone'), which goes beyond the annotation labels. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short sentences deliver the essential message with zero filler. The action, target, and key consequence (irreversibility) are front-loaded, making the description easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the rich annotations, 100% schema coverage with per-parameter guidance, and an existing output schema, the description completes the picture: it fully explains what the tool does, what is destroyed, and the irreversible nature. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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% and each parameter has a clear description (runId from edit_pdf, environment pinned by API key, workspaceId from get_me). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond echoing the 'edit group' concept already implicit in the schema's runId reference. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('delete'), a precise resource ('edit run'), and its scope ('and its stored outputs (edit group)'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling delete_*_run tools (e.g., delete_extract_run, delete_workflow_run) by naming the edit-run type.

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 description clearly indicates the tool's use case: permanently removing an edit run and its outputs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the phrasing 'permanently delete' and 'cannot be undone' signals the destructive decision point. Among the many delete_*_run siblings, the resource type is unambiguous.

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